<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:85724.wais]
SPRING VALLEY REVISITED: THE STATUS OF THE CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATED
SITES IN SPRING VALLEY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-176
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
-------
85-724 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland, Chairman
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, DC
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut DIANE E. WATSON, California
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Russell Smith, Staff Director
Heea Vazirani-Fales, Counsel
Matthew Batt, Legbislative Assistant/Clerk
Jon Bouker, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 26, 2002.................................... 1
Statement of:
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 6
Williams, Rear Admiral Robert C., P.E., Assistant Surgeon
General, U.S. Public Health Service, Director, Division of
Health Assessment and Consultation, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services; Bailus Walker, Jr., chairman, District
of Columbia Mayor's Spring Valley Scientific Advisory
Panel; Sarah Shapley, co-Chair, Spring Valley Restoration
Advisory Board; and William C. Harrop, president, Spring
Valley-Wesley Heights Citizens Association................. 108
Wood, David G., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. General Accounting Office; Raymond J. Fatz, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army, Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health; Colonel Charles J. Fiala, Jr.,
Commander, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, accompanied by Major Michael D. Peloquin, Deputy
District Engineer, Spring Valley FUDS Site, Army Corps of
Engineers; Thomas C. Voltaggio, Deputy Regional
Administrator, Mid-Atlantic Region, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and Theodore Gordon, senior deputy
director for public health assurance, District of Columbia
Department of Health, accompanied by Lynette Stokes, chief,
Bureau of Hazardous Materials and Toxic Substances,
District of Columbia Department of Health.................. 15
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, prepared statement of..................... 9
Buford, James, interim director, District of Columbia
Department of Health, prepared statement of................ 76
Fatz, Raymond J., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Environment, Safety and Occupational Health, prepared
statement of............................................... 36
Fiala, Charles J., Jr., Commander, Baltimore District, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, prepared statement of............. 46
Harrop, William C., president, Spring Valley-Wesley Heights
Citizens Association, prepared statement of................ 150
Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 3
Shapley, Sarah, co-Chair, Spring Valley Restoration Advisory
Board, prepared statement of............................... 145
Voltaggio, Thomas C., Deputy Regional Administrator, Mid-
Atlantic Region, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
prepared statement of...................................... 64
Walker, Bailus, Jr., chairman, District of Columbia Mayor's
Spring Valley Scientific Advisory Panel, prepared statement
of......................................................... 120
Williams, Rear Admiral Robert C., P.E., Assistant Surgeon
General, U.S. Public Health Service, Director, Division of
Health Assessment and Consultation, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, prepared statement of.................. 110
Wood, David G., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of...... 17
SPRING VALLEY REVISITED: THE STATUS OF THE CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATED
SITES IN SPRING VALLEY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Constance E.
Morella (chairwoman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Morella, Norton, Watson, and
Shays.
Staff present: Russell Smith, staff director; Matthew Batt,
Legislative assistant/clerk; Robert White, communications
director; Shalley Kim, staff assistant; Heea Vazirani-Fales,
counsel; Jon Bouker, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk.
Mrs. Morella. I'm going to call to order the Subcommittee
on the District of Columbia.
The hearing today is on ``Spring Valley Revisited, the
Status of the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites in Spring Valley.''
I want to welcome our colleague, who will be the first one to
testify this morning.
But I would like to say that it was not quite a year ago
the subcommittee convened our first hearing into the issue of
arsenic and other chemical contamination in the Spring Valley
neighborhood of the District of Columbia. The problems stemmed
from a weapons laboratory that spread out across hundreds of
acres of American University and the surrounding neighborhood
during World War I. The American University Experimental
Station, as it was known, was the second largest chemical
weapons facility in the world at that time, employing as many
as 1,900 military and civilian personnel. Untold numbers of
experimental chemical weapons were created, exploded and buried
on its grounds.
At the time, our last hearing, I said that we were on a
search for answers. We wanted to know how these buried
munitions remained undiscovered for nearly 80 years, whether
Federal agencies or other parties could have been more
aggressive in searching for possible contamination, and how
quickly the Army Corps of Engineers was going to move to
identify the extent of the problem and conduct the cleanup.
Congresswoman Norton and I, last year, requested a General
Accounting Office investigation of the matter, and that
completed report becomes part of the public record today. Even
with the work of the GAO, however, we are still in search of
many answers. We still don't know why the Army Corps failed to
identify the Spring Valley area as contaminated before 1993,
when a construction crew accidentally discovered munitions. We
still do not know whether the management of the Environmental
Protection Agency back in 1986 received or reviewed
photographic evidence of World War I chemical weapons testing
in that area, evidence that was compiled by the agency's own
photographic interpretation division. And we are still unclear
about the progress of any criminal investigation into this
matter.
Whereas last year's hearing focused on what went wrong in
the past, and it's sad and disturbing that we may never know
the whole story, today we're going to be looking ahead. There
are some pressing issues that need to be addressed to ensure
that the remediation process moves as quickly and as
effectively as possible. The residents of Spring Valley and the
people who work in the area deserve finality.
Yes, progress is good, and it does appear as if the Army
Corps and its various partners are making solid progress in
rectifying the situation. But we must have a definite and
narrow timeframe as to when all testing, digging and cleaning
up will be finished. We need to know that the Army Corps has a
detailed remediation plan and enough money to finish the job.
I also hope this hearing will shed some light onto whether
the residents, past or present, of the Spring Valley area face
any long term health risks due to the arsenic that lay
underground for so long. The Federal Government needs to be
able to look the residents of Spring Valley in the eye and say,
your house is safe, your property is safe, you are safe, your
children are safe. We're very cognizant of the hard work being
done by the Army Corps, the EPA, the District of Columbia
Department of Health, the Mayor's Scientific Advisory Board and
the Restoration Advisory Board. The GAO report commends this
partnership for its effort in communicating with the public.
And from my understanding, there truly has been a marked
improvement in the public's participation in this process
compared to the situation from early last year.
So as we look ahead at this hearing, I think there are
still questions to be answered. I still consider it a work in
progress and hope that we will be able to have some sense that
we are moving ahead.
I now recognize the distinguished ranking member,
Congressman Norton, for her opening comments.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.002
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mrs. Morella. I want to
thank our distinguished Chair, Representative Connie Morella,
for calling this hearing to hear the results of a GAO
investigation and report that she and I requested concerning
World War I munitions buried by the U.S. Army in the Spring
Valley neighborhood of northwest Washington. This is our second
hearing on the cleanup. I requested the first hearing in
February 2001 as the 107th Congress began, simply as matter of
oversight before Spring Valley became the tangle of mystery and
concern about responsibility, health effects and costs it has
now become.
The first hearing, held in July 2001, became a matter of
greater interest when a Washington Post investigation suggested
that the Federal Government had failed to fully and
expeditiously investigate and reveal evidence of buried
chemical weapons, and in addition, had incompletely analyzed
and conducted aspects of the cleanup. So many new questions
were raised and these charges were so serious that they could
not be sufficiently investigated through a congressional
hearing alone. Mrs. Morella and I therefore requested the GAO
report and findings to be reported today.
I will not rehearse the unfortunate and complicated set of
events that led us to request the GAO report and to conduct our
second hearing on this subject. But it is clear that more
hearings, as part of the close and continuing oversight by this
subcommittee, will be necessary for some years to come, until
it is clear that the continuation of any resulting health
effects, should there be any, are under control or have been
eliminated.
I have been closely following the cleanup, and both the
progress and the problems are considerable. However, now the
Army Corps of Engineers is working closely with the community
and the District. Recently I announced an additional $5.2
million that allowed work to continue at several sites. Through
fiscal year 2001, the Corps has spent $53.4 million and $18
more is expected to be spent in 2002. But even now, it is not
clear what the total cost will be. What is clear is that the
Spring Valley residents are innocent victims and that the
Federal Government is the responsible party to be held
accountable until the cleanup and any health effects that are
discovered have been eliminated.
We continue to be deeply concerned about what went wrong.
There is no way to avoid mistakes in the future without
assessing their causes. However, two questions will take
primacy over all others for me today. First, what are the
health effects of the contamination on my constituents and what
can be done and is being done about them? Second, what will be
the cost and duration of the cleanup, how can we assure
continuing and uninterrupted funding, and what can be done to
speed the cleanup process?
Spring Valley is a beautiful and highly desirable
residential neighborhood. Most of its residents have lived in
the District for years, including the years of the city's
financial hardship, when many Washingtonians left for the
suburbs. Spring Valley residents deserve to live in homes free
from fears concerning their health and the health of their
children. The obligation of this subcommittee is to assure
these fears are eliminated by in turn holding the responsible
Federal agencies accountable to meet their obligations to the
Spring Valley community. I have no doubt that both these
obligations will be met.
May I welcome today's witnesses and thank them for their
testimony. I especially welcome my good friend and colleague,
Representative Earl Blumenauer, who has given important
leadership to formerly used defense sites like Spring Valley
located throughout the United States. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton. And again,
I'm pleased to recognize our first panelist, Congressman Earl
Blumenauer, who is a good friend who works with us on so many
issues, particular those that have to do with the environment
and personal safety. So I appreciate his being here and I now
recognize him for a statement. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Norton. As a Member of Congress and as a part time resident of
the District, I feel better knowing that you are on the job
helping us out. Because this is a serious issue for us in both
hats that we wear, as citizens and residents and as Members of
Congress.
Last spring I was privileged to attend a little field trip
with Congresswoman Norton, as we visited the sites, as we saw
the child care center on American University's campus still
closed, the rugby field that you'll hear about. We looked
across the road and saw the back yard of the Korean
ambassador's official residence dug out. And as we went through
the neighborhood, looking at the work that was being done, it
did bring home the stark reality, the magnitude of the problem
that remains, and the importance of the work you're doing. Not
just because it's important to assure the safety and security
of the residents, the students, and the people in the District
of Columbia, but because of what this represents nationally.
I am firmly convinced that our ability to understand what
happened on this site, what is happening and how to
appropriately remedy it is going to make a huge difference in
our ability to deal with the broader issue of unexploded
ordnance cleanup, and I salute you for the work that you are
doing.
But there is special attention that needs to be focused on
this particular site. As the Chairwoman mentioned, at one point
this was a hotbed of activity. But it's not just in this area.
Washington, DC, as the Nation's capital, has been the focal
point for military operations since the founding of the
capital. Despite its small size, the District, by the
information I've received, is No. 10 amongst all the 50 States
and the District. It ranks No. 10, ahead of 40 States, in terms
of the number of potential buried ordnance sites, according to
the Department of Defense ranking. As you mentioned, this is
part of the toxic legacy of World War I chemical weapons. And
it continues 84 years later.
It is critical to be able to put the laser light of
attention that you can direct from this subcommittee. We've
already had two cleanups on the site, and as you know, the job
is not finished. Residents continue to be at risk. The
situation that exists in Spring Valley today ought to force us
to give the overall problem nationally the attention that it
deserves. People at risk should not have to play politics and
resort to the news media to be able to have the problems that
they're experiencing appropriately addressed.
Across the Nation, tens of millions of acres are
contaminated by the toxic consequences of our military
activities. And if, when we are going to give approximately
$400 billion or more in this fiscal year for our military
activities, now is not, I think, an unrealistic time to have a
small portion of that resource spent in helping the military
clean up after itself. The one risk, the toxic legacy that most
urgently needs to be addressed, is that of unexploded ordnance,
the bombs and shells that did not go off as intended and
subsequently litter the landscape and put people at risk. There
are some 2,000 formerly used Defense sites and closed bases
that are contaminated with UXO. No one yet is really in charge
of dealing with the problem. And there certainly is not
adequate funding to address it. What you are seeing with your
GAO study, with the work that the subcommittee has ferreted out
in the past, and continuing oversight these bring to the
surface, is part of a larger question. If we were doing our job
properly on a national basis, your task would not be so
difficult.
Last year, the Department of Defense provided a $14 billion
estimate for cleaning up UXO nationwide. But that is nowhere
near the price tag. According to the General Accounting Office
report of April last year, there are estimates within the
Department itself for UXO cleanup on training ranges alone that
total over $100 billion. This cost of cleaning up the ordnance
and chemical weapons is tremendous. I have heard estimates that
go far beyond that from the private sector people who are
struggling to figure out how to deal with it. In addition, the
Department of Defense has estimated that it will cost $16
billion to remediate the hazardous waste contamination at over
4,000 sites on the Nation's 1,700 active and recently closed
bases, and at least 1,200 formerly used Defense sites.
I think, Madam Chair, Congresswoman Norton, that Spring
Valley does emphasize three important lessons. The first is
that we have to make more careful assessment of the needs of
UXO problems. We can't be in such a hurry to finish cleanup
that premature decisions are made that could potentially do
more harm because people rely upon those decisions. Often,
decisions are made that no further action is necessary, yet the
public is still at risk. This is a mistake that both the State
and Federal regulators have made repeatedly. The Corps of
Engineers, with the concurrence of the Environmental Protection
Agency, announced in 1995 that Spring Valley had been cleaned
up. But since that declaration was made, as you well know, 700
mortar and artillery shells were found and 200 bottles of
poison gas have been recovered so far. And the job is not
finished.
The second lesson of Spring Valley is that proper record
keeping of military activities is not just paper shuffling.
It's not a secondary concern. Government records concerning
military activity from decades past are hard to find. I note
you have our favorite map here that goes back about 80 years.
And people are looking at this aerial survey, trying to
reconstruct what happened on the site. As you mentioned, almost
2,000 people worked there and over 100 structures were there.
This is not appropriate. In the Pacific Northwest, we're
dealing with problems with the Hanford Military Reservation
with toxic radioactive waste. We have no idea what is there.
Better management of our activities with the information and
archives and investing the money needed will provide better
environmental and ordnance response and will make a huge
difference in protecting the public.
Last but by no means least, with your help in focusing the
attention on this, I think we can devote adequate funding to
address these problems up front. I mentioned over $400 billion
that's in the pipeline for the Department of Defense and
related activity. This week, we're dealing with military
construction and Defense appropriations. Although cleanup does
not get cheaper, and costs can be an embarrassment if we don't
do it right, not just in terms of requiring more money, but
putting people at risk, the irony is that if we spend money
properly, if we spend more money now to do the job right,
actually the per unit costs are going to go down dramatically.
We will reduce liability. We will have more people
participating. We can improve the technology. Some of it looked
pretty primitive when Congresswoman Norton and I were looking
at the activities that were going on. We can't really tell
whether it's a hubcap or a bomb sometimes that's out in the
countryside.
With your help, I know we can provide the long overdue
treatment the District deserves and do the right thing for the
country. A framework for addressing the problem must be put in
place and much greater attention must be paid to the issue by
Congress and the Department of Defense. Creativity and follow-
through are essential. I know with your help we can achieve
that. I deeply appreciate your continued interest, your dogged
determination to do this right and I stand willing, even though
I'm a little ways away from the District, to help in any way
that I can.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenauer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.005
Mrs. Morella. We appreciate your interest and followup.
Your testimony was excellent, as well as the field trip and
your passion for the issue. I note your three points--more
careful assessment, record keeping, better management, adequate
funding.
Given your knowledge and expertise on the Federal funding
of the formerly utilized Defense sites, FUDS, as they call
them, would you share with the subcommittee your thoughts and
observations about how the Defense Department does allocate
funds to these FUDS for environmental cleanup and compliance
activities?
Mr. Blumenauer. Madam Chair, I am concerned that we are
actualy putting the Department of Defense in a difficult spot.
Thanks to the Corps of Engineers and our friends at the
Department of Defense, there's been a lot of work that's been
done of late, there's progress that's been made. You're going
to hear from some really capable people who have been putting
heart and soul into it.
The concern I have is that because this has not received
the necessary priority, in the Defense authorization, for
instance, we actually decreased to raise the level of potential
research and other activities. What happens is that DOD has an
impossibly small budget and we find that too often they get
summoned when something gets in the news, and it's pretty
dramatic what's going on in Spring Valley, so they have to
shift resources. It's very hard for them to do this on a
systematic basis.
I truly believe that it's going to require Congress to not
be missing in action. We've got to authorize appropriate money
for cleanup and for research, and we have to not have wide
variations from year to year. This is because they truly don't
know what they're dealing with.
So I know there are those who have more technical expertise
than I and can talk about approaches and what-not. But I
fundamentally believe the problem is that we in Congress
haven't yet done our job.
Mrs. Morella. Is there criteria that you know of in terms
of prioritizing those sites for funding?
Mr. Blumenauer. They can speak to that. But really, the
work that I have done is that I have looked at various places.
What's happened is a lot of this is driven by imperatives of
what has happened in terms of unintended consequences and media
and political intervention.
Mrs. Morella. So it's a reaction?
Mr. Blumenauer. Very much reactive.
Mrs. Morella. So what you're saying is that we need to have
a whole plan. We need to establish criteria, prioritize, and be
preventive.
Mr. Blumenauer. Madam Chair, that is well stated. But I
will say that I think the reality is going to be that there
will be certain things that will just burst on the scene that
will have more of a dramatic or political impact. And those in
the Corps of Engineers or Department of Defense will respond to
the will of Congress and the public. That's not a way to deal
with this massive problem, even just within the District of
Columbia, let alone nationally.
Mrs. Morella. You have legislation you've introduced that
deals with some of this. Would you like to expand on that?
Mr. Blumenauer. Yes, ma'am. We are seeking in part to have
somebody in charge in the Department of Defense, to pinpoint
responsibility. We have required that an inventory be
developed. We have been slowly but surely getting little bits
and pieces worked in, but we hope at some point we will get a
comprehensive congressional statement. I'm happy to provide
more of that to the committee as you see fit.
Mrs. Morella. Splendid. Thank you very much. And thank you
for your continued work in this particular area. We appreciate
it very much.
I am going to recognize the distinguished ranking member,
but before I do, I would like to acknowledge that we have the
gentlewoman from California who is here, Diane Watson, who
serves on this committee.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not going to detail
Mr. Blumenauer long, indeed, I apologize that beginning at 11
o'clock I'm going to have to come back and forth. There are two
markups that begin there, including one concerning guns in the
cockpit, which I strongly oppose. I'm going to therefore be
detained.
I want to say that I am a co-sponsor of your bill, the
Ordnance and Explosives Risk Management Act. It's a no-cost
bill. You simply want a program manager, you want to prioritize
and to identify where these funds are. Frankly, they are so
widespread in so many districts, I can't believe that we will
not have many allies, once they come to understand what is at
stake. Spring Valley is a way to understand what is at stake.
You emphasized quite correctly that we are No. 10 among the
States with these sites.
Spring Valley should receive priority, not only because we
rank so high, but because this is one of the few sites that has
been uncovered in a densely residential area. And if I may say
so, if the District had had home rule the way other States do,
and had a Member of Congress during World War I, I doubt that
they could have used our city within the city limits as a
dumping ground. It is one more reason why every locality ought
to have its own elected officials and its own Member of
Congress with a vote, able to protect the locality. It's very
easy to say, just dump it in the District.
That's why we're giving priority to the District, not to
mention the fact that there are women and children involved
here. It's not like it is in some States out in the desert some
place. It's right here where our people live and work.
I certainly hope, however, that given the danger that these
buried munitions pose wherever they are found, that your bill
will get the attention and the support of the entire Congress.
I thank you very much for being willing to come this morning
and testify.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Ms. Norton. Ms. Watson, if you'd
like to make any comments or have any questions of Congressman
Blumenauer.
Ms. Watson. Yes. This Spring Valley issue just points up a
greater issue that we're going to have to take up seriously.
And that is, what do we do with these depositories, with bases
and so on that we leave behind contaminated? And I want to join
with my other two distinguished colleagues in asking that we
maybe request that there be action taken on the cleanup of
Spring Valley that is long overdue and other top priority sites
across the country. I think that maybe we need to, the larger
committee, needs to hold a hearing where we talk about other
No. 1 sites and what the EPA is doing. But I see the Spring
Valley as an issue that needs to be addressed at the current
time, but we need to address the bigger issue about how rapidly
we're doing the cleanups and budget for them.
So thank you so much for bringing the issue back again in
front of us. I am with my colleagues in whatever we can do.
Mrs. Morella. And I think that's exactly what Congressman
Blumenauer would like. I would now like to recognize one of the
newest members of this subcommittee, the Honorable Chris Shays
from Connecticut for any comments he may have.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am a new
member to this committee and delighted to be a new member. I
feel the responsibility that Congress has with D.C. is a
tremendous responsibility. I don't think we have lived up to
it. So I'm happy to kind of help you in this effort with your
distinguished ranking member.
I just wanted to be here to also say that my Committee on
National Security believes that Mr. Blumenauer is right on
track with what's happening in D.C. and throughout the country,
major expenditures that we have really put to the back burner
because we don't want to confront them. And he is, in a sense,
forcing us to confront them. I have tremendous respect for him
and I just want to thank him personally for what he's done, and
to let you know that our subcommittee, the National Security
Subcommittee, is happy to work with you and to follow your
guidance on this effort and see how we can help in other places
around the country.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Shays. Congressman Blumenauer,
we thank you very much. As you can see, you have a very
responsive group up here, and we will follow through.
Mr. Blumenauer. Super. Thank you.
Mrs. Morella. I'm now going to ask our second panel to come
forward, please. David Wood, the Director of Natural Resources
and the Environment, who's done the GAO report. Raymond J.
Fatz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Environment,
Safety and Occupational Health. Colonel Charles J. Fiala, Jr.,
who is the District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Baltimore District. He is accompanied by Major
Michael D. Peloquin, who is the Deputy District Engineer of
Spring Valley FUDS Site, the Army Corps of Engineers. Thomas C.
Voltaggio, who is the Regional Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, in Region III. Theodore J.
Gordon, who is the Senior Deputy Director for Operations, of
the District of Columbia Department of Health. And Mr. Gordon
is accompanied by Dr. Lynette Stokes, Chief, Environmental
Health Administration of the District of Columbia Department of
Health.
I would ask all of you to stand so I can administer an
oath, which is the tradition of this subcommittee and the full
committee. I would also ask Dr. Stokes and Major Peloquin,
also, if they would be part of administering the oath, too.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Morella. The record will show an affirmative response
of all who are here. We will allocate each of you kind of a
maximum of 5 minutes, so we have a chance to ask questions.
Looking at the panel, if we could start off with Mr. Wood and
move in that order. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID G. WOOD, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; RAYMOND J. FATZ,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; COLONEL CHARLES J. FIALA, JR., COMMANDER,
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ACCOMPANIED
BY MAJOR MICHAEL D. PELOQUIN, DEPUTY DISTRICT ENGINEER, SPRING
VALLEY FUDS SITE, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; THOMAS C. VOLTAGGIO,
DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, MID-ATLANTIC REGION, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND THEODORE GORDON, SENIOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSURANCE, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ACCOMPANIED BY LYNETTE STOKES,
CHIEF, BUREAU OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Mr. Wood. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
In response to the request from you and Ranking Member
Norton, we gathered information on four aspects of the Spring
Valley cleanup effort. These were, one, the roles of the
Government entities involved, as authorized by statute,
regulation and guidance, and as actually carried out; two, the
progress that has been made in identifying and removing hazards
at the site; three, the health risks that are associated with
these hazards; and four, the estimated cost and schedule of the
remaining cleanup activities.
Our report and my written statement provides an overview of
the statutory authorities for the roles of the three Government
entities, namely, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the District of Columbia
Health Department. The report and statement also provides
updated information on the hazards that have been identified
and removed from the site.
In the interest of time, I will not go over that
information now, but will focus my remarks on the remaining two
areas. First, the remaining health risks. Of the contaminants
known to be present at elevated levels, arsenic is deemed to
pose the greatest risk to human health. Over the past year, the
agencies have been in the process of reaching agreement on a
single level of arsenic that may remain in the soil throughout
the site that is protective of human health and the
environment.
Also, since last fall, the Corps has been sampling the soil
on each Spring Valley property in order to identify those with
the highest levels of contamination. Efforts have been underway
to determine the health risks to Spring Valley residents
specifically posed by the arsenic contamination in the soil. In
these efforts, the agencies have been assisted by the Federal
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR.
Further, they have received advice from the Mayor's Scientific
Advisory Panel. The panel is specifically charged with
reviewing the processes used to identify contaminants in the
Spring Valley neighborhood and assuring that the best
scientific knowledge is applied.
ATSDR has performed additional exposure testing of
residents of Spring Valley properties with elevated soil
levels. Further, the D.C. Health Department has carried out a
descriptive epidemiological study of certain arsenic related
health effects. In this study, data on incidents of certain
cancers among Spring Valley residents were compared with those
found in a control group located in another area. The
Department concluded that for some cancers, the number of cases
at Spring Valley was too small to conduct meaningful analysis.
For others, specifically bladder, skin and lung cancers, the
Department observed no excess of incidence in mortality in
Spring Valley.
Residents have raised concerns about the scope and
completeness of the exposure testing and epidemiological
studies. The Department has stated that it will expand its
investigations and include additional hazards if they are found
at levels of concern in Spring Valley.
The final topic I will speak to is the projected cost and
timeframe to complete the site cleanup. At our request, the
Corps updated its estimates. As of April 2002, the Corps
estimated that the remaining cleanup activities at Spring
Valley would cost $71.7 million and require 5 more years until
completion, projected to occur in 2007. However, many factors,
such as the potential discovery of additional hazards or
changes in annual funding levels, make these estimates
uncertain.
Since fiscal year 1997, the Corps has increased the total
estimated cost for the Spring Valley cleanup sixfold, from
about $21 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $125 million as
of April 2002. The Corps has reduced its estimate of the time
it will take to complete the cleanup by increasing considerably
the amount of annual funding it plans to devote to the site.
However, any significant increases in the total cost of
completing the cleanup or decreases in the amount of available
annual funding would likely lead the Corps to extend the
completion date further into the future.
Madam Chairwoman, in concluding, I'd like to note that the
Spring Valley site, while unique in some respects, is one of
some 9,200 formerly used Defense sites identified by the Corps.
As was evident at your hearing last year, and as you alluded
during your opening comments, the history of this site raises
questions about the adequacy of the Corps' process for making
cleanup decisions. We currently have work underway examining
the basis for the U.S. Army's conclusions that no cleanup
actions are needed. The Army has made this decision at over
4,000 sites. We anticipate further work on these issues in the
future.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
respond to any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.022
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Wood. We are going to have a
vote, but we do have time to hear Mr. Fatz, Deputy Assistant of
the Army, Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health.
Mr. Fatz. Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee,
I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Spring Valley formerly used Defense site
and the GAO report.
I would like to update you on the progress the Army has
made over the past year and reinforce our commitment to protect
the health and safety of the residents of Spring Valley. I
believe Spring Valley is a safe place to live and raise a
family. There is no doubt that munitions, both conventional and
chemical, pose a risk. However, because they are buried and not
widely scattered, these buried munitions are contained and less
likely to be encountered by the public.
It is true that we still need to do additional work to
identify any remaining buried munitions. To address this
concern, the Army, EPA and D.C. Health developed a plan to
evaluate potential ordnance sites, and to identify these sites
for subsequent action on a priority basis. The Army will take
whatever action necessary to safely recover any munitions.
Although arsenic is present in soil at Spring Valley, 90
percent of the properties tested this past year had arsenic
below the cleanup level. At the remaining 10 percent of
properties, the risk is related to long term exposure.
To deal with this remaining risk, we have a plan in place.
We know where the arsenic is located. We have communicated the
hazards to the public, and we are onsite and will be cleaning
up to community agreed levels. Since the last time I appeared
before you in July 2001, the Army has made significant progress
in characterizing arsenic contamination in soil. We adopted a
priority wide cleanup level and we located and safely excavated
an historic burial pit on Glenbrook Road. None of this progress
would have been possible without the support of the community
and the cooperation between the partners, which include the
Army, Environmental Protection Agency and the District of
Columbia Department of Health.
At the time of the last hearing, and at the request of the
community, the Army recently initiated a comprehensive effort
to sample all properties in the Spring Valley community for
arsenic. To date, 90 percent of the approximately 1,500
residential and non-residential properties have been sampled.
We now understand the extent of arsenic contamination in the
soil. It is important to note that 90 percent of those
properties we have sampled require no further action. There are
approximately 160 properties where we need to take removal
action which will begin next month on a priority risk basis.
I believe we have made great progress since last year's
hearing, and have significantly reduced uncertainty about the
extent of the contamination. The agreement on a property wide
cleanup level for arsenic was a major milestone for the
project. Since there is no District of Columbia standard for
arsenic in soil, the EPA provided the leadership in proposing a
cleanup level that was both logical and provided a consistent
level of protection throughout the community. It was adopted by
the partners and supported by the Mayor's Scientific Advisory
Panel and the community. As a result, we have an established
protection level and will begin cleanup on the first group of
properties next month.
Our success in this area is due to the active participation
by each of the partners in a decisionmaking process. I believe
the relationship between the partners is a model of
collaboration and cooperation that should be applied at other
cleanup sites. During the past year, after the extensive
effort, the Army was successful in locating a World War I
burial pit that contained a large cache of munitions. The Army
has safely recovered most of the contents and we are working to
gain property access to complete the excavation.
This operation turned out to be much larger than
anticipated and required considerably more resources and time
to complete than originally planned. Again, the Army
demonstrated our commitment to the safety of the community by
reprogramming resources within the FUDS program to address this
unforeseen requirement. The Army has committed to funding the
cleanup at levels that will allow completion over the next 5
years. Our plan represents a balance between national program
priorities and the needs of Spring Valley.
I would now like to briefly provide my thoughts on the GAO
report on the Spring Valley cleanup. In my review of the draft
report, I found the report to be a positive testimony to the
progress and the complexities of the Spring Valley cleanup
project. I think it is important to note that the uncertainties
of Spring Valley are inherent to any environmental cleanup
project where our understanding of site conditions has changed
so dramatically over time. I believe the Army has approached
the cleanup of this site in a good faith, systematic manner.
Where there are uncertainties, the partners have worked
together to address them and will continue to do so.
I want to emphasize the No. 1 priority in all decisions
made at Spring Valley is the health and safety of the community
and our workers. We value the participation of the Restoration
and Advisory Board and are striving to keep them informed as
well as other community members. The residents of Spring Valley
can count on the Army to keep them well informed on our
activities there. Throughout the process, we have kept open
lines of communication through public meetings, newsletters,
the Corps Web site, direct interaction with residents and other
public releases of information. We are committed to an open,
continued dialog on our activities at the site, and appreciate
the feedback we have received from the community. It is our
intention to continue our policy that whatever we know about
the site, we will share with the community in as timely a
manner as possible.
Madam Chairwoman, I wish to thank you and the subcommittee
for its interest and support in our efforts at Spring Valley. I
look forward to working with you toward a successful cleanup of
the site. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fatz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.030
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Secretary Fatz.
I am now pleased to recognize Colonel Fiala.
Colonel Fiala. Good morning, Chairwoman Morella and members
of the subcommittee. I am Colonel Charles Fiala, the Commander
of the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers. Thank you for
your invitation this morning to testify before this committee.
Last July I testified about our past work at the site.
Today I would like to discuss our recent progress at the site
and other FUDS sites in the District of Columbia. In the past
year, we have made significant progress in the Spring Valley
project on three fronts. First, our project team has been
extremely busy defining the scope of DOD contamination at the
site and removing hazardous material found. Second, the project
partners, that is, the Corps of Engineers, EPA Region III, and
D.C. Health have made great strides in our working
relationship. All three parties agree that their effectiveness
continues to improve as they move forward in openness and
cooperation, drawing on the strengths that each brings to the
fight.
Last, we have actively solicited the community input on key
project decisions and increased residents' opportunities to get
involved. Field work in the last year has greatly reduced the
uncertainties about the extent and location of arsenic
contamination at the site. We have nearly completed this site-
wide soil sampling effort developed by the partners at Spring
Valley in 2001.
To date, we have sampled 95 percent of the 1,158
residential properties at the site. On the map before you and
on the map on the screens of the side of the wall, the area
shaded in green and light yellow have already been sampled.
Based on sampling results, we expect to conduct soil removals
at approximately 160 properties. Besides arsenic, the sampling
results have not identified any other chemicals of concern at
the site.
In addition to delineating the scope of soil contamination,
we are reducing the hazards associated with this contamination.
Since last July, we have removed arsenic contaminated soil at
the American University Child Development Center playground and
just began soil removal at the adjacent grounds and intramural
field to address those hazards before the return of children to
the facility. We are also beginning the first soil removals at
residential properties with arsenic contamination.
The Corps has reduced hazards associated with buried
ordnance and chemical warfare material at the site. We safely
investigated a large burial pit straddling two Glenbrook Road
properties. This investigation yielded more than 370 ordnance
items, a small fraction of which contained chemical warfare
agents and over 50 sealed bottles, many of which contained
agents. We conducted this work in a safe manner, ensuring no
chemicals were released.
Regarding the status of the project partnership, I am
confident that the Corps, EPA and D.C. Health will continue to
forge an effective working relationship. We work together on
management, technical and community issues. Let me give you a
few examples of what I mean.
Last fall, the Corps tested several updated instruments
used to detect potential ordnance burials. From those results,
the partners selected equipment for future investigations.
Concurrently, our partners developed a site evaluation scheme
to identify and prioritize areas for ordnance investigation.
This led to the identification of the highest priority areas,
many of which have now been surveyed with the new equipment.
As another example, the EPA took the leadership role in
proposing a significantly protective site-wide arsenic cleanup
level. In reviewing this proposal, the partners sought input
from two advisory groups, the D.C. Mayor's Spring Valley
Scientific Advisory Panel and the Project Restoration Advisory
Board. Their input proved very helpful in the partners' recent
adoption of that cleanup standard.
Established of the RAB highlights the third area of
progress. Our interaction with the RAB, participation in public
meetings and our daily conversations with individual residents
have helped us to fully appreciate the community's diverse
concerns. Important decisions are now routinely discussed with
the RAB and interested members of the community. The result is
that partners now have a better understanding of our community
issues as we plan work for the future.
Last, I would like to discuss the status of FUDS in the
District of Columbia. We have identified 59 sites in D.C. Of
these, 45 have received a classification of no DOD action
indicated, NDAI. And 11 sites are ineligible under the FUDS
program. We have current response activities at three remaining
sites. They include Spring Valley, Camp Simms and Catholic
University. All there were NDAIs originally. But this
classification is always open to reevaluation if warranted by
new information.
In conclusion, we have worked hard during the past year to
reduce the uncertainties associated with Spring Valley FUDS by
defining the extent of DOD contamination and solidifying the
partnership's collaboration. To succeed in this challenging
site, we will continue its synergistic partnership with EPA and
the District of Columbia, seeking full and open consultation
with the community.
As always, we remain committed to aggressively responding
to the risk associated with the former Department of Defense
activities at Spring Valley FUDS. I would like to thank the
subcommittee for the opportunity to speak, and I am prepared to
answer your questions regarding the Corps of Engineers' efforts
at the site.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Fiala follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.046
Mrs. Morella. Thank you very much, Colonel Fiala. Now I
will turn to Mr. Thomas Voltaggio.
Mr. Voltaggio. Good morning, Chairwoman Morella and members
of the committee. I am Thomas Voltaggio, of EPA's Middle
Atlantic regional office. I'm pleased to be here.
Today I want to report on the progress of the Spring Valley
cleanup effort, comment on the GAO report and discuss other
formerly used Defense sites, or FUDS, in the District, and most
importantly, offer EPA's judgment on the remaining health risks
to the residents of Spring Valley.
Let me address the last issue first. The risk from arsenic
contaminated soil is now very well characterized. With a few
residences still to be sampled, I am glad to report that nearly
90 percent of the homes in the Spring Valley neighborhood do
not have elevated arsenic levels. None of the elevated levels
of soil arsenic that have been identified presents an immediate
threat to human health.
They must be cleaned up, however, to eliminate the long
term threat that these soils pose if people were to be exposed
to them for decades. The first of these residential cleanups,
as you heard, will begin next month.
I realize that there is no such thing as a routine cleanup
of arsenic contaminated soils if they are on your property. But
I can assure the subcommittee that we have extensive experience
in the kind of soil remediation that's required here. And the
technical difficulty in removing these kinds of soils is not
great.
The risk from buried chemical weapons is certainly higher,
but well contained. As these burial pits are identified, they
are being cleaned up in a way that is safe for both the workers
and the neighboring community.
In summary, the vast majority of residents in Spring Valley
appear to be at no unacceptable risk due to World War I era
chemical weapons work. Today, there is still a substantial,
highly site specific risk at ordnance disposal areas. And there
is a long term risk for about 10 percent of the local
homeowners because of arsenic contaminated soils. That risk is
only related to longer term exposure and cleanup will be
underway shortly.
I would now like to report on the status of EPA's
activities at Spring Valley since last July. Since last July,
the team, consisting of the Corps, EPA and the District, have
been working on a number of issues that you have identified.
Firstly, the Corps has conducted an extensive cleanup of a
burial pit that was identified on Glenbrook Road, including
hundreds of pieces of ordnance. Tons of contaminated soil in
the Child Development Center have been removed, and the Korean
ambassador's residence work is virtually complete.
Approximately 1,300 properties have now been sampled.
In short, the actual cleanup of hazards is moving ahead
with vigor. Indeed, the amount of hazardous substances that
have been removed in the last 11 months is roughly comparable
to all of the materials that had been removed in the previous 8
years.
I would now like to turn to EPA's comments on the GAO
report. EPA has not seen the final GAO report, so my comments
are limited to the draft that we received last month.
Generally, we believe the draft has done an excellent job in
presenting the facts. The GAO recognizes the important role of
the robust partnership that now exists among the Corps, EPA and
the District. We agree that the partnering effort has allowed
the cleanup to move ahead with both speed and thoroughness.
Whereas the arsenic sampling is nearly complete, and we
have a pretty thorough idea about the scope of the contaminated
soil problem, the team does not have the same amount of
certainty regarding ordnance. The GAO is right to emphasize the
uncertainty associated with that part of the overall effort.
Additional disposal pits may be discovered. And if they are,
significant work will need to take place. And significantly
more work, of course, means more time and more money.
Finally, the GAO draft report discusses the statutory
responsibility for the cleanup of FUDS. There is consensus
among all the participants that it is the Department of
Defense's responsibility to clean up Spring Valley. Regardless
of whether that cleanup would occur under the FUDS program
authority or under EPA's Superfund authority, the Army has
primary responsibility for the cleanup effort and has to pay
for that effort.
I would now like to turn to the status of EPA activities at
other FUDS in or near D.C. In addition to Spring Valley, there
are dozens of other FUDS located in the District. EPA has
reviewed the entire FUDS listed and has identified three sites
that should receive attention in the near future. These are the
former Maloney Chemical Lab at Catholic University, Diamond
Ordnance Fuze Lab, and the C&O Canal near the Chain Bridge. In
addition, we are reviewing information to locate the site of a
1-day test of chemical materials referred to as the Conduit
Road Field Test site in the old Army documents.
The Corps has funded further investigative work at the
Maloney Chemical Lab. Because the Army reports that it
currently has no additional funding for the other two sites,
EPA plans to take a larger role in investigating them.
So in conclusion, I would like to say that Spring Valley
cleanup is moving in the right direction. We will continue to
assist the partnership and we pledge to assist the efforts to
investigate FUDS in the D.C. area. I want to acknowledge the
work of the other organizations that have been involved in the
cleanup effort: Colonel Fiala, Major Peloquin and the Corps;
Ted Gordon and the District's environmental team; and the
various health experts, such as the ATSDR, the Mayor's Science
and Advisory panel and the District's Department of Health are
all to be commended.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy
to answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Voltaggio follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.056
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Voltaggio. Mr. Gordon, we look
forward to hearing from you. I would like you all to know that
your testimony in its entirety as presented to the committee
will be in the record. I know time constraints have prevented
you from reading all of it. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon. Good morning, Chairwoman Morella, Ranking
Minority Member Norton and distinguished members of the
subcommittee.
I am Theodore Gordon, I am the Senior Deputy Director for
Public Health Assurance of the District of Columbia Department
of Health. I am joined to my left by Dr. Lynette Stokes, who is
the Chief of the Bureau of Hazardous Materials and Toxic
Substances for the Department of Health.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the
subcommittee this morning on our agency's role, its authority
and its responsibilities in the effort to remediate buried
munitions and other contaminants in the Spring Valley
neighborhood and other formerly used Defense sites in the
District of Columbia. My comments will focus on providing you
an update of the work the District of Columbia Department of
Health has completed in Spring Valley since your last hearing
on this subject in July 2001.
But first I want to mention that the Department of Health
has had an ongoing relationship with the representatives of the
U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO], in order to be responsive
to their questions as quickly as possible and provide as much
information as we have available to the Department of Health.
As the Department of Health testified in July 2001, Mayor
Anthony Williams assembled an independent group, the Spring
Valley Scientific Advisory Panel, which includes seven
specialists in the field of epidemiology, toxicology and
environmental health, and members of the Spring Valley
community. A Department of Health representative has
contributed to each of the Spring Valley Scientific Advisory
Panel meetings by presenting information or responding to panel
recommendations. The Department has addressed each of the
Panel's recommendations, received and will address those
provided by the Scientific Advisory Panel meeting held on May
29, 2002.
The Department identified data gaps in our available
information regarding issues in Spring Valley and acknowledged
that additional data will be needed and collected to determine
whether residents were exposed to elevated levels of arsenic in
Spring Valley. We have followed the guidance from the Mayor's
Scientific Advisory Panel and will respond to all future
recommendations to address the concerns in the Spring Valley
community.
The Department recognized the importance of the Scientific
Advisory Panel's recommendations and requested further
technical assistance from the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry to collect additional data, perform
biomonitoring and exposure investigations of residents in
Spring Valley.
As you are aware, the ATSDR provided similar technical
assistance at the request of the Department of Health at the
Child Development Center on the American University campus,
where there was concern that children may have been exposed to
arsenic contaminating the soil. The results of the ATSDR test
indicate that none of the children at the Child Development
Center had been exposed to elevated levels of arsenic among the
children who were currently enrolled at the Child Development
Center.
The Department of Health and ATSDR met with community
members to discuss the proposed exposure investigation in
Spring Valley. We invited the community's participation at the
very beginning to ensure that Spring Valley residents
understood the objectives of the investigation and its
limitations. We publicized the community meetings in our Spring
Valley newsletter and have provided these newsletters, which
are also posted on our Web site.
We have also provided the internet address for the most
recent information about health effects associated with arsenic
exposure. The Department of Health recognizes that the
community must have a clear understanding of each step of the
process. While we investigate the potential exposure to
contaminants in Spring Valley, we will continue this process by
meeting with the community and providing information to the
residents of Spring Valley as we obtain it.
For the sake of time, Congresswoman, that summarizes my
testimony. I would just like to add a few comments. And that
is, I would like to really commend Dr. Bailus Walker, who is
the chairman of the Mayor's Scientific Advisory Panel. He has
done, in my opinion and in the opinion of other scientists and
clinicians in the Department of Health a truly outstanding job
in leading us and assisting us with the science, the
engineering, in helping move forward to assure this community
that what we're doing is right and correct, based on solid
science and engineering. It has proved very beneficial to the
Department of Health.
In closing, I would just say that our relationship with the
Corps of Engineers, ATSDR and EPA has been, I guess the word I
would use is superlative, in our working relationship. We look
forward to continuing as we bring this matter to closure in the
future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buford, as presented by Mr.
Gordon, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.076
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. Mr. Theodore Gordon
talked, as the others did, about the wonderful partnerships
that evidently have been established in eradicating the Spring
Valley problem of contaminated sites.
Now for the questioning, I'll try to confine each of us to
about 5 minutes. We can go several rounds, and make it far more
equitable.
I'd like to start off with GAO. After reading your report,
Mr. Wood, it's clear that your agency has done a good job in
making detailed observations concerning the Spring Valley site.
But the subcommittee would like to know, however, that beyond
just your observations, which we see in your report, what are
your recommendations? I don't see any recommendations here.
Mr. Wood. Madam Chairwoman, as with any project that we
undertake, we always try to remain alert to the possibility of
recommendations and in fact, if they are warranted, make them.
One of the limitations of this study is that it's a review of a
single site. What characterizes our work more is programmatic
reviews of broad programs.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, we do have work
underway looking at the decisionmaking process that the Corps
uses at sites nationwide. That report will be coming out within
the next 2 months. I can assure you, to the extent they are
warranted, it will contain recommendations.
Mrs. Morella. Let me also ask you about the report, that in
1986, the Army searched records and reviewed photographs to
locate those spots. They concluded that there was no evidence
of large scale burials at the site. Of course, we've all talked
about in 1993 they found it, and in 1996. Have you seen that
report? Have you read that report in 1986?
Mr. Wood. We have the report, yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Morella. You do have it?
Mr. Wood. Yes.
Mrs. Morella. I would like to have this subcommittee have
an opportunity to see that report.
Mr. Wood. No problem. We can provide that.
Mrs. Morella. OK, so you do have that report. Who owned
that Glenbrook Road property?
Mr. Wood. Who owned that property in 1986?
Mrs. Morella. Yes, in 1986. I think AU was asking for the
Army to comment or to review and study that area. Something
flubbed up at that point. Did you notice that at all?
Mr. Wood. The Army's study was actually initiated by the
American University.
Mrs. Morella. AU, right.
Mr. Wood. Who was planning to embark on some construction
work. The Army contracted with the EPA photographic lab to do
that photographic analysis. All of these events happened in
1986, but I think it was at the end of the year when the final
results of the Army study were transmitted back to AU.
Mrs. Morella. What I'm wondering, as you can tell, is was
there any responsibility in 1986 for not knowing, not being
able to clearly reflect the fact that there were problems at
this site?
Mr. Wood. The question of disclosure and the obligation to
disclose is a matter that we didn't undertake specifically,
because there are currently cases in litigation where that is
the central element. The GAO policy generally is to not
undertake work if it could possibly influence ongoing
litigation.
But the issue that you raise is actually the subject of
this report that I referred to that will be coming out. The
Corps didn't use quite the same process then that they use now,
and the terminology is different. But in essence, the 4,000
sites that are the subject of a report that will be coming out
are those that the Corps concluded there was no need to clean
up the site, based on what they now call a preliminary
assessment for eligibility. And it's basically a review of
documentation, a site visit, interviews with current owners. It
doesn't include typically any kind of sampling of environmental
media, like soil or water sampling. And it's that very process
that is the subject of our upcoming report.
Mrs. Morella. I look forward to seeing that report, or
having you comment to us about it. Can you tell me what the
status is of the EPA's criminal investigation?
Mr. Wood. We checked with the criminal investigation
division of the EPA, that's the unit of their enforcement
office. We checked a few weeks ago, and at that time, they
planned to have a final report by the end of May. Now, they
haven't let us know that investigation is complete. Typically
the outcome of that investigation would be a decision to either
refer a matter to the Justice Department if they think there is
evidence that an environmental law has been broken, with a
criminal implication, or not.
Mrs. Morella. That was the end of May, and this is the end
of June.
Mr. Wood. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Morella. So perhaps we can get an update, maybe EPA
can update us on the status.
Mr. Voltaggio. Congresswoman, I would be happy to pass this
question up to the criminal investigation office in EPA. I have
no direct knowledge in this area. I would be happy to work with
your staff.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you. I also understand, I don't know
whether this would be GAO, I think probably so, when we had our
last hearing, we also had heard just a few days before that
American University had filed a suit. I haven't heard anything
more about it, have you? Does anybody know what the status is?
Mr. Wood. The claims that we are aware of that are in
litigation right now are I believe all from individual
homeowners. I don't think we're aware of any involving AU.
Mrs. Morella. Somehow it has all disappeared. I remember it
had been filed.
Mr. Wood. There had been a number of counterclaims in some
of these suits. So it may be that AU is involved in one of the
counterclaims.
Mrs. Morella. I guess I would then look to maybe Colonel
Fiala, although I notice my time is up. Let me defer to the
ranking member and get back to you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mrs. Morella. Mr. Wood, how likely
do you believe it is that this site could be finally cleaned up
within 5 years?
Mr. Wood. I don't think I have any better crystal ball than
anybody else. We tried to make clear in our report, there's an
awful lot of uncertainty associated with that estimate, not
only the physical uncertainty of not knowing what's buried
there, but also, it assumes a steady funding stream of
something on the order of $11 million a year.
Ms. Norton. Assume that for a moment, assume the funding
stream.
Mr. Wood. If the funding stream is there, I would have to
say, I don't have a basis for knowing whether or not that would
lead to the cleanup or not, because of the other uncertainties.
Ms. Norton. So you don't believe we have a good fix on how,
and I'd want anyone else to jump in here, on the amount of
contamination yet, so that no judgment can be made on the
reliability of the 5-year time line? Would somebody else care
to comment?
Colonel Fiala. I will comment on that. No. 1, we do know a
lot more than we did last year. We do know that 160 properties
contain some level of arsenic contaminated soil. And we have a
plan, pending a 5-year funding stream, to remove that, based on
their various risks. We work that with the community and our
other partners.
Second, we have about 200 areas of concern that we will go
back and look at for possible ordnance burial areas. And the
first 50 of those have been prioritized, based on risk and
other factors, in conjunction with our partners, in conjunction
with the community. And we will start work on those later this
fiscal year.
The uncertainty that we talk about is as you go through the
process of looking at these various areas of concern and you
get into a large pit, burial pit of ordnance, that stretches
the time out, that stretches the cost of cleanup out. Just like
for example, the Glenbrook pit that we found last year, we are
in the midst of continuing the work there, temporarily stopping
because of access to the adjacent property that we're working
through. But that takes time, and that takes resources.
So for us to look at the crystal ball and say, we'll be
done in 5 years, you've got to make assumptions on how much if
any are we going to find at these other 200 areas of concern.
And that's difficult to make.
Ms. Norton. So do you agree or disagree with the 5-year
estimate?
Colonel Fiala. I'm saying, with the information we know
right now, 5 years is a reasonable time line.
Ms. Norton. We can't ask you to know what you know now and
to do more than estimate based on what you know now.
I guess it is Deputy Secretary Fatz, I was a little
concerned, in your testimony, when you indicated concerning how
you decide on priorities, if I recall correctly, I tried to
write it down, that you look at the balance between the
national program priorities and Spring Valley. We've already
had testimony that Spring Valley, this is a city, not a remote
location. Spring Valley ranks among the 10, it's not only a
residential neighborhood, it's a densely populated residential
neighborhood.
I would like to know what priority Spring Valley has with
you, given those factors. The notion of balance, especially
given the fact that FUDS don't tend to be located, so far as I
know, in such neighborhoods, concerns me.
Mr. Fatz. We have demonstrated through our funding,
particularly in the last couple of years, that this is the
highest priority in the FUDS program. In 2001, we had program
dollars and we added an additional $4 million in 2001. In 2002,
at mid-year, we recognized the burial pit and the arsenic
sampling must continue together, and we added an additional
$5.2 million at that time.
One of the best things we can do for a program like this,
to help Colonel Fiala and his team, is to have a consistent
level of funding. So in our FUDS guidance for the next 5 years,
we have programmed out $11 million for each year.
Ms. Norton. I very much appreciate your stating this top
priority. I think when the community hears that in the balance
that Spring Valley will not be outranked, that's very important
for the stability of the neighborhood and for whatever we can
do to take uncertainty out of the picture for the community. I
see my time is up, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Morella. The question I would ask all of you, are the
residents and those who work in Spring Valley safe? Everyone is
pausing to respond to that. Would you like to start it off, Mr.
Wood?
Mr. Wood. I think that's certainly the question that
everyone would like to know the answer to. And I don't have a
direct answer, I'll just be up front about that. I would say
that based on the work that we've done, if I were a resident
there, and I am a resident of the District of Columbia, I guess
I would take the most comfort from know that there's a good
institutional framework in place, including the Mayor's
Advisory Panel, to give the best advice, to make sure that as
health risks are identified, that they're dealt with as quickly
as possible.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Fatz.
Mr. Fatz. I believe that Spring Valley is a safe place to
live. And as Mr. Wood said, it is our obligation to move
quickly when there is a risk identified, particularly on the
buried munitions. We have shown that in the last year, that
we've done more there than, as our EPA colleague has stated, in
the previous 8 years.
Mrs. Morella. Colonel Fiala.
Colonel Fiala. Ma'am, we consider Spring Valley to be a
safe residential neighborhood. We have issues with munitions
and arsenic in the soil, as I testified. We have a good handle
on the extent of arsenic contamination across the community. We
know where the high risks are, and we are communicating those
risks with EPA, with our partners and to the community and the
residents.
In addition, while we don't know the extent of buried
munitions, we have a good idea of areas of concern. Nowhere has
there been any reports of injuries related to munitions in
Spring Valley. So the overall feeling of the team is that it
does not pose imminent risk.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Voltaggio.
Mr. Voltaggio. Yes. Let me add to that, without repeating,
because I do agree with the statements of the gentleman to my
right, but in addition to that, it is probably the best
characterized neighborhood in the country. Every residential
property and every non-residential property has been sampled,
95 percent complete, but it will be totally completed soon. And
as a result of that, people know what the contamination level
is, if any, in their homes. That to me makes it safer than most
anyone else's home where such sampling has not happened.
In my own home, I have no idea what the levels are. It was
built on an orchard. Perhaps there is contamination there,
perhaps there isn't. This neighborhood, what the residents can
know is that they have been sampled, almost 90 percent of them
have no problems with regard to elevated levels of arsenic.
That to me is a very comforting thought.
Mrs. Morella. So 10 percent do, as you said in your
testimony. So I think all of you, you're implying too, that
it's not 100 percent. But we're getting there. We're checking.
I'd like to give you a chance, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Well, I guess I'm going to be the oddball and
say that I don't think you can really say that it's safe. But
from a public health standpoint, we can say that the risk is
low, based on the most available scientific data that we have
today.
Mrs. Morella. I note that the GAO report on page 3 states
that the partners have disagreed over the immediacy of the
health risk posed by arsenic contaminated soil. Given the
sample results in the ATSDR, how would you characterize the
remaining environmental and health risks? Are there precautions
that residents should take? Mr. Wood, I'd start with you, if
anyone else wants to comment on it.
Mr. Wood. The language in our report referred to the
process of setting the site-wide soil standard for arsenic. I
guess I would leave it to the health experts just how to
characterize that level of arsenic in the soil.
Mrs. Morella. And that gets to another question I have
about the parts per million of arsenic to soil, the ratio. I
notice the ratio is 20 parts per million for arsenic
contamination determined as a safe level at the Spring Valley
site. How does this compare to natural background levels in the
District of Columbia? And how do the numbers compare to other
contaminationsites in the District of Columbia? You're anxious
to start on that, I can tell, Mr. Voltaggio.
Mr. Voltaggio. Yes. The Corps did an extensive background
study with regard to arsenic levels in the District and outside
of the Spring Valley area. The average is roughly five parts
per million. If you look at a statistical 95 percent confidence
of what the number would be it is that all the levels, we're 95
percent sure that all the levels are below 13 parts per
million.
We have found background levels, individual background
levels having nothing to do with Spring Valley, up to 18 parts
per million. So that was our characterization of background, is
if you look at a mean, if you look at a 95 percent confidence
level, and you look at what the highest background level would
be. So we know the backgrounds are around less than 20 parts
per million, less than 18 most likely.
When we developed the cleanup level in a very consultative
process with the Army and with the District, we looked at what
the health levels would be, what were the levels below which we
would not have health effects. We looked at background levels
and we found a number that seemed to be a good risk management
decision with regard to what is a proper point at which to say,
below that, a, there isn't any risk of any significant nature,
and b, it's pretty close to what background level would be.
That's how we came up to 20.
This is a judgment, this is a risk management decision.
When you have a judgment on something as important as this,
it's very important to get buy-in from as many scientific as
well as community people as we can. That's why we went to the
Restoration and Advisory Board with that number, got their
input. We went to the District, of course, the District went to
the Advisory Panel. This is why we feel comfortable that we had
a very inclusive process that made sure that all of the
stakeholders were involved, and we felt comfortable that the
science and public policy considerations brought us to a number
that we all can live with.
Mrs. Morella. So there is a variation, is what you're
saying?
Mr. Voltaggio. Sure. Background could be, I mean, it varies
all over based upon the individual nature of the soils and the
activity that was done, other than just Spring Valley type of
activity.
Mrs. Morella. So you use some criteria, but you also have
the arbitrary element that enters into that, too?
Mr. Voltaggio. Yes.
Mrs. Morella. I'd like to hear from Mr. Gordon on that
issue.
Mr. Gordon. We handed this off to the Mayor's Scientific
Advisory Panel. And they concurred with the U.S. Environmental
Agency that 20 parts per million was an acceptable level with
minimal risk. We also know in the District that arsenic was
used in pesticides, not just in the city, but it was sprayed.
And there are considerable background levels that vary that we
have encountered in the District of Columbia. We have found
arsenic present in the proposed site for the World War II
memorial, we found it in the soil there. And we found it in
other locations, not that's associated with Spring Valley.
But arsenic is something that's fairly ubiquitous in the
city, and it's something that we have to deal with in terms of
cleanup and certainly in terms of protecting our groundwater
and our soil. But again, we concur with the scientific
advisory, the Mayor's Advisory Panel recommendations on this,
and EPA provided extensive information to the panel on how they
came up with the standards. So we consider it an acceptable
standard.
Mrs. Morella. It' s just kind of worrisome in a way when
you think about how it may vary from place to place, and you
wonder about what goes into making that kind of decision.
Mr. Voltaggio. Madam Chairwoman, the background varies from
place to place. But what is on those properties we have
sampled, and we know what it is, we know that the levels are,
what the cleanup level tell us is once you find it, what do you
clean it up to. So actually, I don't think the residents ought
to feel that they don't know what the situation is at their
residences as a result of this massive effort the Corps has
done over the past year. We have sampled them all, 95 percent
of them, and we will get them all sampled, and they will know
what is there.
Mrs. Morella. And what to do about it. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mrs. Morella. The most important
issue raised by the contamination are the health issues. The
information on the health issues has been the most
disappointing to me, in particular. Certain of the health
issues have no way to be put to rest immediately because they
involve conditions that develop only over a period of years.
My own concern has been with the epidemiological studies.
At first, it appeared that there was, if I recall correctly at
the last hearing, there was a study without a control group, I
believe. Then there was a study done with a control group in
Potomac, Maryland, I believe. The testimony is that on the one
hand, comforting, because at least as of now, there is no
effect in one study we're told.
What I don't understand is why there would be any study
apparently involving some cancers that was too small for you to
draw conclusions. Why wasn't the study sufficiently large so
that at least, with respect to what we can know, we could say
what the answer is with respect to that group of cancers? When
will we have a definitive, as definitive a epidemiological
study as can be done at this time?
Dr. Stokes. My name is Dr. Lynette Stokes. I am Chief of
the Bureau of Hazardous Material and Toxic Substances. What you
refer to is the incidence and mortality review of Spring Valley
for which Spring Valley was compared to an initial control
group and the U.S. standard for particular cancers.
The cancers that were investigated were those that are
identified in the literature for exposure to arsenic. We didn't
just decide on certain cancers, we looked at those that we know
in the literature have been observed and are associated with
arsenic exposure.
You mentioned another control group was used. At the
recommendation of the Spring Valley Scientific Advisory Panel,
it was suggested that an additional control group be used. We
compared those arsenic associated cancers with Potomac,
Maryland. Both of those comparisons showed that there were no
excesses of cancers in Spring Valley, comparing them to
national rates and comparing them to either one of those
control groups.
Ms. Norton. What is the group that was too small to make
the appropriate comparisons?
Dr. Stokes. Any time for the period that the incidence
trend analysis was completed was a 12 year period. Many of
these cancers are very rare. And over that 12 year period,
there were few that were observed. That's the small number
you're speaking of.
Ms. Norton. Residents of course are concerned about
drinking water, especially since this area is close to
Delcarlia Reservoir. We understand that you have over this
period, indeed before this period, been testing for arsenic. Is
there arsenic in the water?
Dr. Stokes. No. We have observed for the last years of
water, potable water data, that is delivered to the homes in
Spring Valley. None of that data for the 20 year period of time
shows any elevation in arsenic.
Mr. Gordon. If I might further add, we have also gathered
information from Tom Jacobus, who heads the Delcarlia water
treatment facility, as well as the Water and Sewer Authority,
headed by Harry Johnson. There is absolutely no evidence at all
of any arsenic in our drinking water system. We can give our
community total assurance that their water is safe and free of
any arsenic contamination.
Ms. Norton. For the first time, during the last hearing, we
learned that there were FUDS outside of Spring Valley. We have
testimony here today from Mr. Fiala that there are 59, there
were 59 FUDS sites in the District of Columbia, 45 no action
indicated. Let me ask you about the three sites where you are
conducting response activities. Spring Valley we know about of
course. Camp Simms and Catholic University, what is the status
of your work on those other two sites? What have you found?
Colonel Fiala. Yes, ma'am. We've made considerable progress
on going back to Camp Simms. We completed another ordnance
investigation last fiscal year and found no additional ordnance
at Camp Simms. Additionally, we came back and did some soil
sampling at some areas that our partners had some concerns
about at Camp Simms. And we have a draft report that is being
staffed with our partners on results of that investigation.
At Catholic University, we intend to get started on an
investigation at the Maloney Lab later this year.
Ms. Norton. Particularly when new names are thrown out,
Camp Simms, Catholic University, there are of course concerns
in those communities. When will the Catholic University
investigation be done? Having started it yet, when do you
anticipate being finished with it?
Colonel Fiala. We start an initial investigation this fall.
Based on what we find in that initial investigation, we will
either decide no further action or continue with----
Ms. Norton. And when will you know that? When will the
initial investigation tell you whether you need to proceed or
not?
Colonel Fiala. Probably in November or December this year.
Ms. Norton. I wish you'd let this committee know as soon as
you know one way or the other.
Colonel Fiala. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Finally, if I may, I know my time is up,
complete this subject matter, in Mr. Fiala's testimony he says,
the remaining 11 sites are ineligible for cleanup under the
FUDS program. Why are they ineligible? What kinds of sites are
we talking about?
Colonel Fiala. Yes, ma'am. Six of them were duplicates of
others just identified as different activities. Three have no
historic records and two are active Department of Defense
sites.
Ms. Norton. Would you explain what it means to be active?
Do you mean the Department of Defense is still doing stuff
there?
Colonel Fiala. Active installations.
Ms. Norton. In the District of Columbia?
Colonel Fiala. Yes, ma'am. We have----
Ms. Norton. What are those sites? Are they bases?
Colonel Fiala. Anacostia Naval Station, Anacostia, and the
Naval Research Laboratory at Belleview.
Ms. Norton. I see. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Morella. You know, I wondered if you could probably
give us more insight in terms of the other three sites that
were in the District of Columbia, maybe even looking into the
Conduit Road site, which is in Montgomery County, the Maloney
Chemical Lab at Catholic, Diamond Ordnance Fuze Lab and the C&O
Canal near the Chain Bridge area. What's the schedule for
identifying the materials and the remediation?
Colonel Fiala. Well, again, we have a draft report on Camp
Simms right now. We will start an initial investigation of
Catholic University Maloney Laboratory this fall. At the
Diamond Ordnance Fuze Lab, as Mr. Voltaggio stated, we don't
have any other additional information to warrant going back.
But EPA is doing some additional studies. Once we get those
additional studies, or additional information, we'll make a
determination whether or not we need to proceed with any other
activities.
In the Conduit Road activity, or 1 day test site, we
understand that the Navy at Carderock is in their normal
business of doing installation and remediation work at an
active installation, the Navy is doing some study and
characterizing activities there.
Mrs. Morella. Are there any other sites in suburban
Maryland that you all know of or are looking at?
Colonel Fiala. Yes, ma'am, there are two active Nike sites,
one in Rockville and one in Olney, at which--down the road--we
will schedule some activity.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Voltaggio, did you want to comment on
that?
Mr. Voltaggio. Yes. We are really acting as a team here to
the extent that the Army is doing some work, and we can
supplement their investigative work with assessments of our
own, we will do so. We have agreed to work with them through
the summer to work on the three sites that we've identified,
the Diamond Fuze, C&L and Anaconda Road, and any other site
that may come up through the investigations, through the Army
archives and through the information where it appears that
there is an immediate need, we will be happy to place our
inspectors and investigators at the disposal of the team in
order to assess whether there is any immediate types of
assessment work that need to be done.
So we are working through this together, and we are working
through the summer hopefully the three that I identified in my
testimony to be able to better characterize, to know whether
there is no further action needed or whether further action is
needed. I expect that between us, by the end of the summer we
will have identified these higher profile kinds of FUDS sites.
There are dozens of other FUDS that were all Civil War sites
that are lower in the priority scheme.
So we want to use a prioritization scheme that recognizes
the association with Spring Valley or any other reason that it
would bring it to the top of the heap. So we are working
together to make that happen as quickly as we possibly can.
That will be our major activity this summer here.
Ms. Norton. Good. Thank you. Keep us posted.
I guess my final question at this point, because of time,
is to Mr. Gordon. It was during your testimony at last year's
hearing on Spring Valley that you mentioned that the D.C.
Health Department was partnering with EPA in the cleanup of the
Navy Yard, which is the District of Columbia's only Superfund
site. I wonder if you would compare the Department's
experiences working with EPA in the Navy Yard site with its
experiences with the Corps of Engineers on the Spring Valley
site. Are there lessons that we can learn from that experience
that could be useful to the remedial activities?
Mr. Gordon. Congresswoman, let me just say this. There have
been very contentious discussions. The Navy Yard, we are a full
partner under the designation as a Superfund site. We have had
many acrimonious discussions. There have been disagreements,
there have been points of interest that we didn't agree on. But
it has been a very professional, it has been what I would again
characterize as an outstanding working relationships. We have
had similar activities with the Corps and EPA on Spring Valley.
But that's what this process is about. We have a
responsibility to the residents of this city to assure that
their public health is safe. And we are going to do everything
we can to reach the highest degree of confidence that we can to
ensure that. That may involve some very technical and
acrimonious debates on how we proceed.
But in the final analysis, I would say that both
experiences are good. Both experiences are highly professional,
highly technical, and more importantly, most respectful of the
District from the Federal agencies. And they have worked with
us. It's not a bully pulpit type of atmosphere. It is really a
professional atmosphere that I would characterize as absolutely
outstanding.
Mrs. Morella. I'm glad to hear that. Although you had also
commented there was no question with regard to arsenic in the
District's drinking water. The Department asked the Corps
Baltimore District Office to test the groundwater in the Spring
Valley area to determine if it had any arsenic contamination.
Has the Corps preformed these tests and how often is the
drinking water tested and for contaminants? And is the public
given the results?
Colonel Fiala. Ma'am, we have not yet tested the
groundwater issue. I think you're referring to the groundwater
issue at Spring alley. We plan to do that down the road. But
because of this priority of risks, we feel it's a very, very
low risk and that will happen down the road. Again, I've got to
say that I run the Washington Aqueduct, Tom Jacobus works for
me. We pull water out of the Potomac River to provide drinking
water to the District of Columbia. And again, I go back to what
has been testified previously, there has been no identification
of arsenic in the drinking water over 20 years.
Mrs. Morella. When you do test the groundwater, will you be
providing the results to the public? I think it's important the
public be advised.
Colonel Fiala. Yes, ma'am, that's part of the CERCLA
requirements.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you. I will now defer to Ms. Norton for
any questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mrs. Morella. Just a couple more
questions. We've been talking about arsenic here, because we
know that is the major contaminant. Has there been any evidence
of significant exposure of residents to other contaminants like
mustard gas, lucite and the like?
Colonel Fiala. We have no incidence of any exposure to any
chemical material, to either the residents or the significant
work force that we contract and we have onsite.
Ms. Norton. You've tested for that, I take it?
Colonel Fiala. Ma'am, when we go in to open a potential
burial site, there are significant safety requirements that are
laid out, that are reviewed not only by our partners, but are
reviewed by the ordnance and chemical experts in the Department
of the Army before we go to work.
Ms. Norton. So we're dealing with arsenic here, and arsenic
only, for the most part. One more question, it really has to do
with the role of EPA. And I go back to the GAO report that
notes that in 1995, when the Corps concluded that no further
action was necessary, and here I'm quoting from the GAO report,
EPA FEwas involved in the oversight of the cleanup and did not
object to the decision made at that time.'' What I want to know
is what the exact role of the EPA is. Do existing regulations
or law require the EPA to concur in or otherwise dissent from
the Corps' decision and take any action of any kind? What
exactly is the role of the EPA in this matter and what role
should we conclude the EPA will be playing now, given the role
it played in 1995?
Mr. Voltaggio. In 1995, from 1993 to 1995, EPA considered
this site as an ordnance disposal site where the authority, the
responsibility and the expertise resided with the Department of
Defense. Because there were obvious environmental concerns with
regard to any removal of ordnance, we were at Spring Valley to
assure the public health with regard to any airborne
contamination or surface contamination that might have resulted
from the excavation and the disposal of the ordnance.
Ms. Norton. You were asked to do that, but was that a
matter of your regulations, the Corps' regulations or of
Federal law?
Mr. Voltaggio. We were acting under the authority of
Superfund in the emergency response program to provide that
service. But because of our expertise with regard to
environmental contamination, we were brought on as part of that
team as well. It was never a case of the Army asking for our
bona fides. We went in there, we had our expertise, they had
theirs, we worked as a team in order to determine what needed
to be done.
But it was under the authority of CERCLA. We have the
authority to take emergency response actions under Superfund.
But we weren't down there to take emergency response actions
unless we thought it was necessary as a result of inappropriate
activity by the Corps. We did not find any inappropriate
activity by the Corps. We were a part of the team and we made
decisions as a team in 1995.
After 1995, it was recognized that this site changed its
character. It was not just an ordnance disposal site. It was
now an ordnance and disposal site that also had arsenic
contamination. And we then, as a result of our expertise and
authorities under CERCLA to investigate, to take any emergency
actions if they were necessary, stepped up and became a much
more active partner with regard to advising what the
appropriate cleanup processes and procedures should be with
regard to the arsenic. The overall responsibility has always
been with the Department of Defense, through the Army, through
the Corps, for supplying the money and the manpower to do the
job. They have the authority, they have the responsibility.
So it is not an easy question to answer, Congresswoman,
because it was a team response. If and when we came to a
situation that we were dissatisfied, then we could go back and
determine what actions EPA could take under CERCLA. As it
happened, it was not necessary. It was clear from the legal
authority that the Corps had the responsibility and we then
played an advisory role, a consulting role, a team role.
Ms. Norton. Let me caution everybody at the table about
teamwork. I'm very pleased to see the teamwork that is going on
here. I don't think we can proceed without the cooperative
effort that I commend you on having developed.
But I want you to be clear that I don't regard the
partners, please use that word very advisedly for purposes of
working together on what has to be done together, you must be
partners. But I regard the District, the Corps, and the EPA as
checks on one another. A team, when one is involved in
contaminated substances, can be a dangerous concept indeed.
Because when you're a member of the team, then of course you
want to be involved in teamwork. And that has to happen most of
the time. But the only way that I will have confidence in the
team is if every member of the team regards herself as a check
on the other members of the team, obligated to speak not only
to members of the team but to speak out publicly when they
dissent or have reasons to have doubts about what other members
of the team are doing. Thank you very much, Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Ms. Norton. I agree with the
concept of checks and balances. I want to thank the panel. I
would like to allow the subcommittee to present further
questions that we did not have a chance to offer to you. I hope
that you will give us the benefit of any of the reports that
you have alluded to during this year. So thank you very much
for being with us, thank you for your patience in going through
all of the questioning, your testimony. We look forward to
hearing from you again.
And now the second panel will come forward. Actually it's
the third panel. Real Admiral Robert C. Williams, Director,
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dr. Bailus Walker, Jr.,
who is the Chair of the Mayor's Spring Valley Scientific
Advisory Panel. Sarah Shapley, who is the Co-Chair of the
Spring Valley Restoration Advisory Board. William Harrop,
Spring Valley-Wesley Heights Citizens Association.
Again, before you get seated, may I ask you to stand to
swear you in. If you would raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Morella. Thank you. An affirmative response will be so
recorded. Thank you very much for being so patient as we went
through the first two panels. Now, Rear Admiral Williams, we're
delighted to hear from you, sir, and thank you for being here.
STATEMENTS OF REAR ADMIRAL ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, P.E., ASSISTANT
SURGEON GENERAL, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION
OF HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION, AGENCY FOR TOXIC
SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES; BAILUS WALKER, JR., CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA MAYOR'S SPRING VALLEY SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL; SARAH
SHAPLEY, CO-CHAIR, SPRING VALLEY RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD;
AND WILLIAM C. HARROP, PRESIDENT, SPRING VALLEY-WESLEY HEIGHTS
CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
Admiral Williams. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and
members of the subcommittee.
I am Bob Williams, Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. Public
Health Service, and Director of the Division of Health
Assessment and Consultation at ATSDR. Thank you for the
opportunity to once again provide you and the subcommittee with
testimony on the activities of the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry within the Spring Valley Community.
ATSDR, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and
Public Services, is the lead agency responsible for
implementing the health related provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. ATSDR
has been working with the area residents of Spring Valley, the
Mayor's Spring Valley Scientific Advisory Panel, the Spring
Valley Restoration Advisory Board, the District of Columbia
Department of Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assess the public health
impact of environmental contamination with hazardous
substances.
In December 2000, testing conducted by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers detected elevated concentrations of arsenic in
soil samples from the playground of the Child Development
Center at American University. The District of Columbia
Department of Health asked ATSDR to assess potential exposures
to arsenic contaminated soil.
On February 1-2, 2001, ATSDR conducted an exposure
investigation for children enrolled at the Center and for
teachers and staff. ATSDR staff collected hair samples from 28
children and 4 adults and analyzed the samples for arsenic.
Detectable levels of arsenic were measured in hair samples from
8 of the 32 participants at concentrations that ranged from 0.1
to 0.14 parts per million. All the hair arsenic levels detected
in the participants were within ranges reported for unexposed
populations. In the other 24 hair samples, arsenic was not
detected.
ATSDR concluded that none of the participants had hair
arsenic levels that indicated unusual exposure to arsenic.
The District of Columbia Department of Health also asked
ATSDR to evaluate potential exposure to arsenic in residents of
contaminated properties in Spring Valley. In response to this
request, ATSDR conducted a second exposure investigation during
March 13-15, 2002. Residents who lived at the 20 homes with the
highest soil arsenic concentrations were invited to
participate. A total of 32 people, 23 adults and 9 children,
from 13 homes, volunteered.
ATSDR staff collected urine and hair samples from the
participants as well as house dust samples from their homes.
The urine samples were analyzed for both inorganic forms of
arsenic and for total arsenic. These two separate analyses for
arsenic can help to distinguish between dietary sources of
arsenic, primarily from fish and shellfish, and environmental
sources.
ATSDR provided the participants with their individual test
results and presented the findings to the Mayor's Spring Valley
Scientific Advisory Panel on May 29, 2002. Urine arsenic
levels, which are a good measure of recent arsenic exposure,
were generally low. These levels would not be expected to cause
any health problems. Only three of the individuals tested had
reportable inorganic arsenic in their urine, with levels
ranging from 10 parts per billion to 15 parts per billion.
Levels below 20 parts per billion of inorganic arsenic usually
indicate no significant exposure.
The levels of total arsenic in participants' urine samples
ranged from non-detected to 210 parts per billion. Total
urinary arsenic reflects exposure to inorganic arsenic, plus
organic forms of arsenic from foods such as fish and shellfish.
Organic forms of arsenic are relatively non-toxic. It is not
unusual to find total urinary arsenic in the general population
at these levels.
All individuals tested had hair arsenic levels between non-
detected and 0.73 parts per million, the average being 0.1
parts per million. Levels below one part per million usually
indicate no significant exposure. In summary, the hair arsenic
levels show normal levels of exposure. These levels would not
be expected to cause any health problems.
Household dust was tested in 13 homes. Levels of arsenic
ranged from non-detected to 63 parts per million. It is evident
from the participants' hair and urine tests that these dust
levels do not appear to be causing elevated inorganic arsenic
levels in the participants. However, the findings do suggest
that yard soil contaminated with arsenic may be tracked into
homes and could increase the potential for exposures. The
report of the exposure investigation will undergo scientific
review and ATSDR will release that report of the findings later
this year.
ATSDR will continue to work with the other Federal, State,
local health and environmental agencies and the residents to
resolve questions and issues relating to the public health
impact of environmental contamination in Spring Valley. Further
ATSDR involvement, including additional biomonitoring to assess
exposure to site contaminants, will be decided after
discussions with the Mayor's Spring Valley Scientific Advisory
Panel, the Spring Valley Restoration Advisory Board, the
District of Columbia Department of Health and the local
community.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
happy to answer questions you or your fellow subcommittee
members may have.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.084
Mrs. Morella. Thank you very much, Admiral Williams. I'm
now pleased to recognize Dr. Bailus Walker, Jr.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Chairwoman Morella, and thank you,
Ranking Member Norton. I'm Bailus Walker, Chairman of the
Mayor's Scientific Advisory Panel on Spring Valley. I am
chairman of the Committee on Toxicology of the National Academy
of Sciences.
I appreciate the invitation to appear before you. My
comments will focus on the status of the recommendations that
the panel has made to the agencies involved.
Let me pause here and commend your staffs. When you were
not able to attend the meetings of the Scientific Advisory
Panel, your staffs came and sat through the scientific
discussions. These are very complex issues, epidemiology,
toxicology, very complex. And I can say without contradiction
that I think your staff now is probably the most knowledgeable
staff on this Hill with respect to environmental toxicology and
epidemiology.
Let me ask that my entire statement be included in the
record, including the matrix which we have developed that
summarizes the recommendations that we have made over the
period of our existence and the responses to the respective
agencies.
Mrs. Morella. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Walker. Thank you. Let me move to what I think are the
issues that tend to permeate these discussions. And I think
Congresswoman Norton has illuminated these time and time again.
I think the first question is, are there environmental
contaminants in the Spring Valley environment? The answer is
yes. The most prominent one is arsenic. The analysis presented
to the panel by the Corps of Engineers would suggest that
arsenic is the prominent contaminant, and it is the contaminant
upon which most attention should be focused.
The next question is, is there exposure? I want to
distinguish between two types of exposure: potential exposure,
which is what's in the soil, and real exposure, what actually
gets into the human body. And I would add further that for real
exposure, probably the most important determinant of real
exposure is the activity of the individual, the extent to which
he or she plays in the yard, the extent to which he or she
works in the yard, etc.
The third question is, what is the evidence with respect to
real exposure? And I will not repeat what Rear Admiral Williams
has said. I think the evidence he has presented is clear and
convincing. Our committee has reviewed that evidence. We do
suggest that there be further biomonitoring, meaning further
urine samples and hair samples. One of the reasons that we want
this additional work to be done is that we want our conclusions
to be based on a solid base of information, statistical power,
as we call it in the field of environmental epidemiology. And
we also wanted evidence from residents during the period of
maximum outdoor activity.
The other question that permeates this discussion is, what
are the health effects? Dr. Stokes came before our panel at the
last meeting and indicated that members of the community had
reported to her a whole array of complaints, an array of
symptoms that they suspected may be related to the exposure to
contaminants. We did not discount this anecdotal information.
But it was our view that to be scientifically and clinically
valid, we needed to hear from the clinicians. If people have
complaints, by and large, in this community, they would go and
see a physician or they would go to a health care facility.
We believe it important to have from that health care
facility or that clinician or that physician his or her
assessment of that person reporting symptoms. What does the
laboratory data show? What does the physical examination show?
More than likely, the physician would have a history of that
patient. That kind of information would enable us to get a
fairly sound scientific handle on what the health effects in
that community may be.
We've recommended that in our last report, and it is our
understanding that the Department is moving forward to ensure
that kind of information is made available. I would indicate
that what the panel is trying to do is make sure that we have
as much information as we can with respect to exposure, with
respect to health effects, before we draw any conclusions.
The other issue has to do with cleanup, and you've heard
from the previous panel with regard to the 20 parts per
million. We believe that based on the data presented to us,
supporting data presented to us, that the 20 parts per million
is an appropriate clean-up level. We get into the question of
what is safe and unsafe. We're not suggesting that 20 is safe,
we're not suggesting that 19 would be safer. We're simply
saying that based on the evidence that we've read and presented
to us, as well as our own analysis, the respective members of
our panel have conducted their own analysis, that 20 parts per
million would appear to be a level at which there would be very
low risk of disease and dysfunction.
Those are the questions and issues that are within the
purview of our panel. We did not deal with cost issues, we did
not deal with legal issues. Our mandate from the Mayor, our
directive from the Mayor, was to stick solely with the
scientific issues.
Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Norton, that concludes
my comments and I will be delighted to respond to any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.105
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Dr. Walker. And thank you for also
in advance, a bit ago, maybe several weeks ago, sending us your
report. We appreciated receiving that. Sarah Shapley, thank you
for being with us.
Ms. Shapley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member
Norton.
I am Sarah Stowell Shapley, elected Community Co-Chair of
the Spring Valley Restoration Advisory Board for the Army Corps
of Engineers' cleanup of contamination related to World War I
testing of chemical warfare material in our neighborhood. This
Board is a mechanism authorized by statute for the Department
of Defense's formerly used defense sites, known as FUDS, and
has a membership comprised of the various institutional
stakeholders int eh cleanup project, as well as 14 residents of
Spring Valley.
The basic purpose of this advisory board mechanism for the
Corps is to provide it with a means of community review and
comment on its proposed actions and plans, and for the
community representatives, it means a direct interaction with
the Government on these plans in a regular, continuing forum. I
am pleased to be invited to testify again on behalf of the
residents, as I did in July 2001, before the D.C. Subcommittee,
as it revisits our neighborhood and to consider progress and
problems 1 year later.
To reset the stage, we of the Spring Valley FUDS have the
dubious distinction of being a double danger FUDS. That's one
of my cute phrases. Double danger FUDS, as we have both
chemical and ordnance contaminations. I shall address the four
points of interest you called this hearing to consider. I must
note that we have not seen the GAO report until today, so we
will comment on that in the followup period.
Our motto remains focus forward, but now, in 2002, what
that focus means is finish in 4 years. So today my theme and
slogan is, finish in 4 years. We have a focus for this
committee itself, support, please, our appropriations request
for earmarked funds to enable us to finish in 4 years. The time
is now, the year at issue is the fiscal year 2003 appropriation
and the further need is to incorporate an additional mandate
for the years fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2006. This
request is the heart of our report today on the status of
remediation efforts. We believe the Government, all three
partners, are ready to finish in 4 years. But they need the
mandate.
You asked about the performance of the Government agencies
involved in the Spring Valley FUDS project. We can report major
progress in the level of cooperation, the openness and
consensus achieved among the three Government partners, the
Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region III, and the D.C. Department of Health. For
instance, the partners' meetings have been open to residential
members of the board, although they are internal, deliberative
sessions. The partners report their developing plans as they
evolve to one of our monthly board meetings. Staff from all
three partners respond to e-mail inquiries and requests in the
periods between board meetings.
I will highlight that the partners have been considering
adding or augmenting what are called points of interest. These
are points where testing of remedial action will occur based on
updated, integrated data mapping reviews. They are also
considering the criteria for expanding the boundary of this
FUDS based on recent soil test results.
This flexible response to reality is reassuring. What
matters most to residents is that the plans have the unanimous
endorsement of the three partners. The mechanism and the
participants seem to be working well toward that outcome.
The other Government mechanism is the Mayor's Science
Advisory Panel. Their meetings are open to the public. I am
pleased to be able to say that we have a good, close liaison
with this panel through its chairman and staff, before and
after panel meetings.
You asked about the review of health risks as defined for
the Spring Valley FUDS. Here, we now have most of the results
from the suite of standard screening reviews, what I call
indicator studies. And this has good news to report. These
indicator studies have been performed by the D.C. Department of
Health and the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. These indicator studies in turn have now been
reviewed by the Mayor's Science Advisory Panels and officials
from these agencies have reported the details in their
conclusions.
What matters most is that there appears to be no indicator
of a significant level of health risk that would justify full
blown studies and public health assessments. What has been and
continues to be of concern to me is the difficulty of
communicating the results in the process of study in this area
of environmental health assessment. I know the chairman of the
Mayor's Panel, Mr. Bailus Walker, shares this concern. Frankly,
the job has just not gotten done. Partly it is a problem of the
inherent difficult in translating environmental medical science
into lay terms. This means not only the what but also the how
of such environmental health assessments. Partly it is a
problem of each agency having its own responsibility, function
and procedure, so that the public is left with pieces rather
than a narrative whole. We are constantly having to return to
the need for a primer on the most basic terms and study process
for exposure media and epidemiology, for instance.
You asked about the status of remediation efforts. Before I
elaborate on our major need on this subject, I just want to
register three related issues of concern to the community. As
the project moves into the remedial phase and yet more time
passes by, people in the remedial group are concerned about
real estate values and about timely help with containment
measures while awaiting remediation. Everyone is concerned
about the Government's final clearance notice certifying the
safety of a property that would meet a realtor's standard and
would convey with the deed of the land. On this last issue, we
await a legal memorandum from the Army. And I have asked the
Army to provide a statement of their responsibility under the
FUDS program to return to remediate and restore any property in
the event of future problems. This obligation to return needs
to be clearly defined for the community.
On the first two issues of particular concern to the
remedial group of about 150 properties, time is the key. The
more time is taken the more exacerbated are the concerns about
adverse real estate impact and the more difficult are any
containment measures necessary to protect homeowners in the
normal use of their contaminated property while awaiting
remediation.
Now our main concern. With the status of remediation is the
prospect of seemingly endless prolongation of uncertainty about
its fulfillment. After a decade of dereliction, delay and
uncertainty, we have appealed to congressional appropriations
committee members to earmark sufficient funds in the FUDS
budget, which falls under the purview of the Defense
Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee sufficient for us
to finish in 4 years. The 4-year period, and I'll be happy to
take more questions on this, which is fiscal year 2003 to
fiscal year 2006, is the best feasible time limit achievable on
both engineering and logistical grounds in the residential
community.
We ask your support as D.C.'s representative in Congress
for this request, and for it to be fulfilled in the fiscal year
2003 Appropriations Act.
Let me lay out the position, and I'm pleased to say that
some of these criteria and arguments have entered the discourse
of the committee and some of my fellow panelists. We believe
the Spring Valley FUDS merits the special congressional support
of an earmarked, mandated level of funding for several reasons
besides that of an excessively prolonged time line. Spring
Valley is the first FUDS to have all these special
characteristics, which means that this project is a test and
model for the Government's ability to address any other
comparable site in the future. And you've heard testimony to
this point, I think, from the other representatives of the
Government.
First, it is a closely settled residential neighborhood
with extensive and mature landscaping in a major American city.
Second, it is a large site for an urban environment, and one
which has been drastically topographically changed in its
establishment as a residential neighborhood. Third, it is a
site with both chemical contamination of an environmental
medium, soil, and also chemical warfare munitions and ordnance
explosives contamination. Fourth, it is a site organized for
survey and remediation by homeowner property with all
properties, each and every one, subject to testing, another
first in the FUDS program.
Fifth, the field testing for ordnance will use the most
recently developed methods of geophysical detection and
containment for removal, another test and model for the
Government. Sixth, it is ranked level one in terms of the
Defense Department's relative risk evaluation scheme. This last
criterion addresses the question asked by the committee about
other D.C., Baltimore District or Maryland FUDS. There are very
few level one sites. Most sites are at the bottom end of DOD's
ranking scheme. And I have provided to the staff and I know the
staff has the previous GAO reports that itemize these rankings
for the country.
In sum, we believe the Government will benefit on both
technical and managerial grounds if it meets this challenge in
a positive, citizen-friendly way. We were pleased that our own
Delegate Norton was successful in urging the Army to reprogram
some fiscal year 2002 funds to cover unanticipated costs in the
cleanup of one major munitions burial pit. This means the
project is not entering fiscal year 2003 in a deficit position
with respect to its plans for investigation and remediation. It
means that with congressional help, fiscal year 2003 to fiscal
year 2006 could see the end of this decade old problem, and the
restoration of Spring Valley to its deserved environmental
health in our Nation's capital.
Living hand to mouth, or year to year, in our case, with
uncertainty as to designated funding, is definitely not citizen
friendly. I'm going to abbreviate the details on the finance,
which will be in the submission to you.
Mrs. Morella. We have it in what you have given to us here,
$53,765,000.
Ms. Shapley. Yes. The total estimate of cost to complete as
of now, for Spring Valley, is $53.7 million, and thus the level
of effort for each of the 4-years is $13.4 million. Then I've
provided some detail as to how those estimates are derived. I
will just call your attention, Madam Chairwoman, you asked
about contingencies with respect to scope. The allowance in the
Army's plan is for munitions and ordnance removal efforts of up
to 200 properties or points of interest. So that is the scope
that their present budget estimate allows for, which seems
pretty sensible to me.
Before closing, I would just ask that certain documents be
included in the record, namely, our letter of appeal to
Congress for earmarked funding, our followup points from 2001,
and an op-ed piece on the Defense Departments' cleanup by
former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Sherri Goodman. These
have been provided to the committee.
I would just call your attention to the page on national
context, which has some detail about the scope of the Army's
decisions and the prioritizations of FUDS. It is a very
confusing issue to understand, and I think those few facts will
supplement your interpretation of the GAO report.
Mrs. Morella. Hearing no objection, they will all be
included in the record.
Ms. Shapley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Finally, we have done our part in meeting month in and
month out and delivering our letter of appeal to over 60
Members of Congress and local D.C. political leaders. Now we
must ask you to help. The Hill is your territory, Spring Valley
is ours. I hope we can pursue the same course of action so that
we do indeed finish in 4 years. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman,
for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shapley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.108
Mrs. Morella. Thank you very much for all the work that
you've done in addition to your testimony today, Ms. Shapley. I
know your slogan is ``finish in 4 years and get the appropriate
funding of $53.765 million.'' And I note that you have also
prorated it for 4 years.
So now I'm pleased to hear from Mr. Harrop. But we now have
been called for four votes. Then this committee room is going
to be used at 1 o'clock for another subcommittee on which I
also serve, dealing with homeland security. So if we hear your
testimony, we'll see if I have a chance to ask a question then
submit other questions from the subcommittee to you. Thank you.
Mr. Harrop. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am William
Harrop, President of the Spring Valley-Wesley Heights Citizens
Association. Our homes surround American University on three
sides, which makes us the people who are most acutely affected
by the chemicals and ordnance that the hearing is discussing.
We very much appreciate the committee's continuing interest in
our predicament. We appreciate, Congresswoman Morella, your own
personal concern in the midst of a difficult electoral
campaign, to take time on Spring Valley and the District.
Since the Spring Valley Restoration Advisory Board, the
RAP, was set up in May 2001, it has really taken the lead in
speaking for the concerns of families in our area on this very
long drawn-out campaign of evaluation and remediation. My
statement will therefore be brief and will essentially support
and reinforce the testimony of Sarah Shapley on my right, the
community co-chair of the RAB, to whom I might say, our
neighborhood is deeply grateful for all the time and effort she
has devoted to this cause.
My focus, like hers, will be on the heartfelt desire of our
community that the remediation be completed expeditiously. We
want to put this nagging, disruptive problem behind us. We
earnestly ask your help in seeing that the required funds are
appropriated and earmarked clearly.
I will touch quickly upon the points of your agenda
relating to Spring Valley. I also have not seen the GAO report
yet and cannot really comment upon it. Second, in regard to the
role, authority and responsibility of the various agencies
involved, there were very profound problems and frictions and
difficulties among these groups up until last year. I am
encouraged by Sarah Shapley's rather positive comments about
improvements in their responsiveness and coordination, that is
EPA, Corps of Engineers, D.C. Department of Health and the
Mayor's Science Advisory Panel, in their relations with the RAB
in the last year. I agree very much with Congresswoman Norton
that it would be a good idea for these organizations not to
focus entirely on good teamwork, but also on looking at each
other and being sure that each represents its own concerns and
gets the job done effectively.
In regard to the assessment of health risks posed by the
contamination, I frankly am not aware of any evidence that
there is now a significant health risk to our community, nor of
evidence that during the last 80 plus years since the Army's
warfare station closed down that the health of residents in the
area has been really adversely impacted. I think it's
interesting that all the evidence we hear and all the
discussions do not seem to point to a severe danger.
In regard to the status of efforts to remediate the
contamination, Ms. Shapley's statement properly articulates
homeowners' concerns about real estate values, about the need
for a final certification from the Army of the safety of each
property, and for an assurance of the Army's responsibility to
return to remediate any property in the event of problems
arising in the future.
But the neighborhood's greatest worry is that the entire
process seems to be going on without end. This is in part a
question of adequate appropriations in the formerly used
Defense sites, FUDS, budget. It is also the result, many of us
feel, of the establishment of unrealistic and radially low
cleanup thresholds of only 20 parts per million of arsenic.
Setting this threshold at what seems to many an exaggeratedly
conservative level, barely above, as we've heard in testimony
today, the normal background incidence of arsenic in the soil,
has triggered a much expanded effort to replace soil at very
great taxpayer expense, and stretches out the remediation
period and the disruption to our community.
The decision to set such a low threshold seems particularly
striking in the absence of evidence of significant risk to
health. The Army originally worked on the basis of a 43 parts
per million threshold. Why this level was so radically reduced
in the absence of evidence of health risks is very puzzling to
us. In fact, we are puzzled that the President of the Spring
Valley Scientific Advisory Board went along with what we took
to be an effort by the EPA to bring this threshold way down.
With a threshold still at, say, 43 parts per million, I would
imagine this would very much reduce the time required for
remediation and would reduce this difficult budget that we are
engaged in trying to get funds for.
Assuming that we have no choice but to undergo the
elaborate and costly earth removal activity, which this low
threshold necessitates, I fully endorse and support the
arguments presented by Ms. Shapley in behalf of earmarking
sufficient funds over the next four fiscal years in
appropriations for the FUDS and making clear that they are
specifically assigned to this job in Spring Valley.
Again, I wish to thank the subcommittee for its attention
to this subject, which is of really very acute importance to
families living in the area of American University,
contaminated by the actions of the U.S. Army. Thank you very
much, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrop follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5724.110
Mrs. Morella. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrop. I am going
to adjourn the hearing in 15 minutes, but I am going to leave
now and give my ranking member 15 minutes to be able to ask any
questions she may have. I know that one of the questions she
will ask will be one I also wanted to ask, and that is, has
there been an adequate level of communication, this would go
to, I guess, Ms. Shapley, between the agencies involved in the
cleanup and the Spring Valley residents, especially related to
health concerns.
But before I adjourn the meeting, since I have four votes
ahead of me and 5 minutes to get over there, I do want to also
thank the staff for the work that they've done, in putting this
hearing together. On the Democrat side, Jon Bouker, and Jean
Gosa. On the majority side, Russell Smith, Matthew Batt, Robert
White, Shalley Kim, Heea Vazirani-Fales. It's all yours, Ms.
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to
apologize that the matter involving guns in the cockpit came up
just as Ms. Shapley was beginning to testify, so I had to run
over there very quickly.
I'd like to begin with a question to Ms. Shapley, in fact.
I noticed a discrepancy between the amount that the Corps
indicates would be necessary over a 5-year period, $11 million,
and your testimony, which estimates $13 million. What is the
basis for your estimation?
Ms. Shapley. I think what you're referring to as a
discrepancy, Delegate Norton, is that you're referring to the
$11 million?
Ms. Norton. Yes, the $11 million versus the $13 million.
Ms. Shapley. That's because the Army had done a plan that
was looking at 5 years. And what I did was collapse the
categories of expenditure into 4 years.
Ms. Norton. Has the Army indicated they could do it in 4
years with $13 million?
Ms. Shapley. That was what they indicated to me was the
shortest timeframe that would still be feasible. Five years
happened to be their planning horizon, and I asked, in effect,
is 4 years feasible. My rationale for doing that, frankly, was
of course to honor the citizens' concern that this has been
dragging on for so long, and 4 years still leads us out to
fiscal year 2003. And frankly, to allow for the contingencies.
So it seemed to me to do the mainstream planning effort and
designation for 4 years and everybody knows you're going to
have to live with contingencies if they happen. That was the
rationale. So it's the same units, the same estimates.
Ms. Norton. I want to particularly commend you, Ms. Shapley
and you, Mr. Harrop, on the very analytical and level headed
and balanced way you have approached this entire exercise. I
mean, either we can act like wild people, scaring a beautiful
community, in an effort to try to get this done, or we can, as
representatives of the community, inform the community and at
the same time, be careful as to how that information is
relayed. When the words arsenic and munitions in the ground and
contamination are floated around, it is very easy, I've seen
this kind of thing in ANCs, for example, not in yours in
particular, where any word of that kind is used and abused
beyond the evidence. Whatever the experts here believe or
themselves communicate, as far as the community is concerned,
you are likely to be the most credible sources of information,
because you stand in their shoes exactly.
I was, for that reason, concerned to hear that while Ms.
Shapley believes that full-blown studies of the kind that might
be necessary if there was evidence of contamination of the soil
or health effects that we don't have here that might be called
for, the problem you see is in the difficulty of relaying
information in part because of the several agencies that are
involved and we are dealing with scientific terminology and the
rest. I don't know what you would recommend in that regard, but
I would be very interested in anything you and Mr. Harrop would
recommend considering these people have to get on and do the
job.
But that part of doing the job is making sure that people
have the necessary information so they don't feel they should
move, or don't feel the community is unsafe. What would you
suggest therefore might be done to improve communication from
the agencies involved to the community?
Ms. Shapley. Madam Delegate, I know that Dr. Walker and I
have had conversations about this problem of communicating. Let
me just give you an example. I've interacted extensively with
the D.C. Health folks. I've asked them, well, now, you've done
a briefing on the study, could you do a narrative report about
it. And that becomes an extra job suddenly for them to
translate that into a narrative report. And with all due
respect, and I was very grateful for their prompt response, but
the narrative report still did not explain what I referred to
in my testimony as a primer, in other words, how do
epidemiology studies get done? Where do you start? What is the
chain? How do you move from what I've characterized here as an
indicator study to what is a full-blown study?
So in a sense, answering that question, which actually puts
context and allows one, as you say, to stay within the
evidence, is just not on anybody's table to do. When the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry came to brief us,
they talked a great deal about their exposure investigation.
But somehow, what never got communicated was, well, what is the
difference in the level of study between that initial
investigation, what I'm calling indicator studies, and when you
actually go to a full-blown health assessment?
I actually pleaded with them, tell us, maybe the Rear
Admiral will today, how many of these screening level studies
do they do nationally, and how few instances are actually
justified doing the full-blown public health assessment. My own
suspicion is that it's probably 1,000 to 1 ratio. It's a big
ratio, I suspect. That's what I meant by not, and that's part
of alleviating people's worries, in some sense. You do
indicator studies to indicate if there's a justification for
doing in-depth studies. That's one of the missing links.
On the budget end, my specific recommendation, as has
become clear talking with D.C. Health folks, they get money in
this project, as I understand it, to perform various review
functions. It's clear that they don't have enough money as
their share to actually do some of this extras by way of
communication and reporting. So I think this is one of those
instances of the fall between the cracks, the administrative
running costs that don't maybe make it to the top layer in
budgeting between the partners. But I know it's an added burden
beyond what they are already charged to do to ask D.C. Health,
for instance, to do a unified document that brings all these
things together and tries to articulate some of this kind of
context.
Ms. Norton. In the Congress, when we have this kind of
problem, and we have it often because of the nature of
legislation, we often prepare what we call questions and
answers for real people, rather than to talk in the jargon of
legislation. I'm wondering if Admiral Williams, I'll think of
the deepest pockets here, the oldest experience, I wonder if
common sense questions and answers, which usually take the form
of a question with a couple or three sentences as the answer,
because we're not trying to give an encyclopedic response.
Frankly, a rather surface response, primer I think is the right
word for it, Ms. Shapley. I wonder if that could be done here?
Admiral Williams. Congresswoman Norton, that certainly can
be done. I think Ms. Shapley's comments are very well placed
and we can followup on those to address those issues. One of
the things that we are doing is we're putting out a newsletter
every 6 months that provides information to the community on
ATSDR's activities. For this next issue, we will certainly put
a Q&A portion in there, working with Ms. Shapley and other
members of the community to address those concerns.
Ms. Norton. Well, I hope this means we've accomplished
something at this hearing rather concrete. Yes, Dr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Let me add, Congresswoman Norton, I think there
has been some efforts underway to address that. And I think as
Ms. Shapley pointed out, it's not an easy task. Getting the
community to understand the difference between exposure dose,
biologically effective dose, is not an easy task, even for
those who have passed a course in toxicology.
But the Corps, to its credit, did engage a consultant that
spent, I believe, considerable time with the community laying
out almost in an ABC fashion the whole issue of the health
effects of arsenic.
Ms. Norton. That was orally?
Ms. Shapley. Yes.
Ms. Norton. That was orally, apparently.
Ms. Shapley. Well, no, it was then circulated not to the
entire community, but it was up on the Web site.
Ms. Norton. Did it take the form of testimony?
Mr. Walker. No, Congresswoman Norton, it was almost an ABC
of how one moves from exposure to arsenic to the health
effects, what we know about the health effects, etc. And while
our panel was appreciative of that and certainly commended the
presentation, there were some gaps in the information.
Nevertheless, I think my point is that was an effort to address
community concerns about some of the scientific aspects of this
problem.
And ATSDR had an all day session at EPA facilities
discussing how health effects studies are done. But obviously
we can do more. I think those efforts should be recognized.
Ms. Norton. Should be recognized, and I think especially in
light of the testimony we've heard here, that I think has been
very balanced, that there is a problem in getting people to
understand that what Rear Admiral Williams has indicated he
will do would be very helpful.
Mr. Harrop did have something to say in this regard.
Mr. Harrop. Thank you, Delegate Norton. I just wanted to
say that I agree completely with your concern about excessive
worry and anxiety and rumor spreading through the community.
It's a big problem. It seems to me that what we really should
focus on is the fact that as I understand it, the tests that
have all been done to date, whether it was the tests of all the
children at the Child Development Center at American
University, whether it was the test that was just mentioned a
few moments ago of the number of people living in areas most
sharply affected, have really not come up with any evidence of
great health risk.
I think that the behavior of authorities has been on that
basis. In other words, the District regulatory authorities went
ahead to authorize American University to proceed with major
land movement, major excavation and development, before those
areas of the campus had been explored. The District has done
nothing about slowing down what I would imagine must be one of
the most active excavation and home building and home
remodeling areas in the city right around American University,
within block or two. That's gone on apace as though there were
no problem. In fact, we began to wonder how great a problem
there really is if that kind of work would continue.
The Army has just asked the six families on whose property
it's going to be doing some major earth movement, these are the
six families in Fort Gaines who had extremely high, everyone
was concerned by it, very high levels or arsenic, they're going
to have major soil replacement. The Army asked those people to
move out for 2 to 4 weeks while the work was done and then said
explicitly, this is not because we believe there is any health
danger. It is because we think there might be some work site
safety problems and that sort of thing and it would be better
for you not to be there.
So the Army itself does not see, even in these highly
contaminated areas, a direct immediate health problem. So I
just think that we have to be cautious not to allow the obvious
interest to the press in building things up, excitement, to get
us too worried about it. It's against this background that I
personally very much regret setting the threshold at such a
very low level that we're going to have at least, as Ms.
Shapley said, maybe four to five more years of activity, which
it will be very hard to finance in getting fully actually
behind it.
Ms. Norton. I think that really comes out of the delay
caused by the failure of the Federal agencies to come forward
early on, after 1986, tell the truth and get this thing
started. Once you have that kind of problem, it seems to me you
have to err on the side of caution. That's what I think the
community is requiring. Perhaps it overdoes it. But I don't
think there's any choice now. Because of all the controversy,
the only way to put it to rest, it seems to me, is to convince
people that you've done all that you could possibly do. Because
even then, we know as a matter of science we will not erase all
doubt. There is a line that we must walk between the kind of
stupid panic that drives people out of a beautiful community
and drives down their own property values and absolutely
necessary vigilance which is necessary to keep the Federal
Government's feet to the fire. Finding that balance is of
course going to be very, very important.
Now, one of the ways you find that balance is you look at
the testing that has been done. The residents, for example,
have, at least some residents, have complained that there have
been too small a number and too narrow a scope of testing to
get an accurate idea of exposure. So I'd like to ask Admiral
Williams whether or not he believes that the ATSDR study is
comprehensive enough to draw conclusions about arsenic
exposure, based on numbers and on scope of what testing has
already been done.
Admiral Williams. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.
As was suggested by Ms. Shapley, these are indicator
investigations. They are narrow in scope, they are a small
number of population. They are intended to see if people are
currently being exposed, as Dr. Walker said, is there a body
burden of arsenic in the people that we're testing. So it's not
an extensive study.
But in this last study, we looked at the homes where the
highest level of soil arsenic were found. We took the composite
samples provided to us by the Army and said, if we look at the
greatest potential for exposure, it should come from those
yards that have the highest composite arsenic levels. Those are
the folks who we invited to participate in the study.
Now, that doesn't assure us that no one else within the
community has been exposed. But we would expect to see
exposures greater in the folks that have the greater potential
for it.
Ms. Norton. But there has been a complaint, and I'd like to
hear your response to a concern that the study was done in the
winter months, I'd like to know why it was done in the winter
months, you think that doesn't matter. Of course, the winter
months are when people are inside, they're traipsing in and out
where you might bring arsenic inside, the mere fact that it's
less likely that the arsenic itself, if it is in the soil,
would be stirred up. Why was it done in the winter months and
can you do it again in the more temperate months of the year?
Admiral Williams. That was one of the recommendations in
terms of looking at periods of time when activity would be
greater by the participants, in the summer months. That was one
of the recommendations by the Scientific Advisory Panel. We
concur with their recommendation. We did this one at the time
we did because we were understanding that some remediation,
cleanup of properties, was going to be occurring. And we didn't
want those folks to later say, ``well, of course you didn't
find anything, our yards have been cleaned.'' So we wanted to
give them an opportunity for testing early on. So if cleanup
progressed faster, if it had occurred before the summer, they
would have been tested.
We do plan to go into the community again during the summer
months and do additional exposure investigations.
Ms. Norton. Which summer months? When, what year?
Admiral Williams. This year, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. You're going to undertake a study this summer?
Admiral Williams. Another exposure investigation in July,
August, September timeframe.
Ms. Norton. That is very reassuring.
My 15 minutes have long gone by. I know I speak for the
Chair of our committee, Mrs. Morella, when I not only thank and
commend all of you who have testified, but the prior witnesses
as well. This has been very informative for us. It has
performed the function we expected today, which was simply to
bring us up to date.
As I indicated in my own opening statement, and I'm sure
that the Chair agrees here, some of the questions have been
cleared up. The GAO report did not address as many questions as
we had hoped, in part because of ongoing investigations and
because some of the data still is not in. What that does is to
put an obligation on this subcommittee to have regular hearings
on this matter until the sign-off has told us that this work is
done. I can assure you that will happen.
We may call upon each and every one of you again. I thank
you very much for the work you're doing. My staff and Mrs.
Morella's staff will continue to be in close contact with you,
and I hope you will bring to our attention in between hearings
and meetings any matters that require our attention.
Again, I thank you, each and every one of you for your very
helpful testimony and for encouraging us to believe that the
community, working with the Federal agencies, are in fact going
to get this job done. Thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]